Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20141202AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING December 02, 2014 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT A. Meet Sara Adams at Noon on December 2, 2014 at 730 E. Cooper Street (Johnny McGuire's) II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. October 7, 2014 B. October 21, 2014 C. November 11, 2014 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 730 E Cooper (Buckhorn) - Base Lodge - Continued from 12/2 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 16111.11 111__I "1 _: . IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 17 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 U Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES - September 9, 2014 Mr. Erspamer felt a sentence was incorrect on p 2, last paragraph. Ms. Tygre provided a spelling correction that was acceptable to Mr. Erspamer. Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the September 16, 2014 minutes with the requested spelling correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNellis. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, except Ms. Tygre who abstained, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he has known Mr. John Sarpa for a long time and his wife assisted his children with school in the past. He also stated he recently hired Mr. Alan Richman to address a personal real estate matter. None of these issues have a bearing on the Sky Hotel hearing. Public Hearing - 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel - Planned Development Mr. Erspamer continued the hearing for the Sky Hotel — Planned Development. Ms. Garrow proposed for staff to complete their presentation and then allow the applicant to complete their presentation. Mr. Erspamer agreed. Ms. Garrow continued staff's presentation including a number of land use reviews. She displayed a vicinity map of the area identifying the location of the Sky Hotel. She entered into record the site visit which occurred earlier in the day. There were a number of neighbors in attendance along with P&Z members including Mr. Walterscheid, Ms. Tygre, Mr. McNellis, Mr. Erspamer, and Mr. Gibbs. There was detailed discussion regarding the alley and she expects it to be brought up in the meeting as well as discussion from the applicant regarding the proposed changes to the alley. There were also questions related to public amenity space. Ms. Garrow noted the Sky's current location at the base of the mountain next to other lodges including Aspen Square, Alps, St. Regis, Hyatt and Little Nell. P1 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 In terms of the review, P&Z is a recommending body on seven different reviews: 1. Planned Development 2. Commercial Design 3. Conditional Use Review 4. Special Review 5. Timeshare Review 6. Subdivision Review 7. Three Growth Management Reviews The current Sky Hotel has 90 hotel rooms and the proposal includes 102 new lodge units and keys. There will be 103 lodge bedrooms. They are proposing 3,380 sf of commercial space which is a slight decrease from the current sf, so they are not required to obtain a growth management allotment for the commercial replacement. They are proposing five affordable housing units set as a category 3 which will be rental units so lodge employees could live there. Eight free market residential units are proposed. Seventy subgrade parking spaces proposed as well as just over 15,000 of public amenity space including a combination of ground floor space, first floor or site space, second floor as well as a roof top deck. All the space will be permanently publicly accessible. There is a dimensional data chart (Table 1) located on p 16 & 17 of the packet showing accurate and up- to-date values. Overall, the proposal includes just over 97,000 sf of floor area. In the lodge zoned district for a lot of this size, 92,783 sf would be allowed. They are requesting a slight increase through the planned development process. The lot allows for 2.5:1 floor area and they are requesting 2.6:1. Sixty (60%) percent of the building is proposed be lodge, four (4%) commercial, five (5%) affordable housing, twenty (20%) will be free market residential and there is between eleven and twelve (11-12%) that is non -unit space including corridors, lobby, and similar type of spaces. In terms of ratios for the different uses, the proposal is under the amount allowed for the lot. In terms of height, the project is proposed to have varying heights. The lodge zoned district allows heights of 38-40 ft. The applicant is requesting 45 ft at the highest point as the code measures the height. There are varying heights she believes the applicant will discuss further. The proposal also includes one setback reduction for the east side yard. They are requesting 2.8 ft when 5 ft is identified in the code. She provided a drawing displaying the area in the setback difference. In regards to the net lot area calculations, there is a detailed discussion in the memo related to net lot area. Net lot area determines the allowed floor area ratio. In today's code, areas that were formally vacated right-of-ways are not included in the net lot area calculation. Areas in easements are also not included in the net lot area calculation. For this property a number of street and alley vacations occurred in 1961 and 1962. At that time the code did not require those areas to be deducted from the effective net lot area. Staff and the applicant have gone back to research what happened at that time. Staff is recommending City Council amend the original vacation ordinances to clarify the issue regarding the exchange of property at the time. What was Spring St is now where the Sky Hotel is built. And where Spring St is currently located used to be property. This is an example of the exchange that occurred between the City and property owners at ya W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 one time. It is staff's position those areas should be included in the net lot area calculation. In terms of the floor area numbers, staff included those areas. The net lot area does not include an Alps easement which included some parking on the Sky Hotel property. Another area not included in the net lot area calculation is an area partially used by the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The applicant has agreed to remove this area from the net lot area calculations. There are three areas the applicant has requested to vary from the planned development process including floor area, height and the east side yard setback. For the commercial design review, it is a chalet inspired design including varying roof forms. Staff has suggested some simplification of some the roof forms. Staff likes and supports the direction of the chalet inspiration and feels it fits within the character of the area and within the community. The application exceeds the public amenity requirements by quite a bit. Staff feels this is an appropriate location for some lodging massing. Staff is comfortable with the direction of the massing proposed in the floor area and height, but they do think the applicant needs to take a look at the east wing abutting the Aspen Alps, Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont properties. Staff would like to see additional height mass and height variations. Staff does not want them to simply decrease ceiling heights. They would prefer to see additional decks, setbacks. The conditional use review is required for the replacement of the commercial space in a lodge zoned district. There is currently just over 5,000 sf of commercial space in bar areas, restaurants, kitchen, and ski shops. These are all proposed to be replaced in smaller size for a total of just over 3,000 sf. Staff supports the replacement of the commercial space. The special review is required for the parking calculations. There is an easement for Aspen Alps including 13 parking spaces proposed to be maintained. There are 51 parking spaces required for the project and the applicant is proposing 70 spaces in the garage. However, 22 of the spaces are stacked, so only 48 spaces are calculated based on the code. Staff supports the special review request based on the assurances from the applicant that all 70 spaces will be available for visitors of the lodge utilizing valet parking as it is today. There is a conditional approval that each affordable housing unit receives a parking space in the garage. Subdivision and timeshare reviews are required for the timeshare or fractional units. There are three fractional units with a proposed 1/10th interest for a total of 30 interests available for sale. Each interest owner would have five weeks of use and they are required to be available for rental to the public when they are not being used by the owner. Staff supports the timeshare proposal. It is very typical and meets all the applicable code requirements. There a number of growth management reviews. They are required to receive allotments for the 26 new lodge pillows, eight free market residential units and five affordable housing units. There are adequate allotments available to accommodate the request. In terms of mitigation, for the new lodge and free market component, there are 2.15 FTEs required for mitigation of the lodge (additional 26 pillows) and there are just over 3,000 sf of net livable area required to mitigate the additional free market residential space. The applicant is providing five units, including 1.75 FTEs in a one bedroom unit to mitigate for the lodge requirement. There is a .4 FTE deficit the applicant is proposing to make up thru either a cash in lieu of payment or thru housing credits. In terms of the free market residential requirements, the applicant is exceeding the required amount of sf mitigation requirement. The housing board has reviewed the application and recommended in favor of their proposed mitigation and for the applicant to using housing credits instead of the cash in lieu of payment to make up the .4 FTE deficit. P3 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 There were a couple of issues raised by the Development Review Committee (DRC) during its review. One issue is related to parking along Durant as mentioned in the memo on p 23. The packet went out prior to meeting with the Engineering Department. The original DRC comments received from the parking department included five on -street parking spaces at the corner of Durant and Spring, which they wanted to be maintained. In speaking with the city engineer, one of those spaces does not meet our model traffic code or the engineering code in terms of sight lines. The space should probably not be there now. The applicant's proposal includes significant enhancements at this location including removing the 'illegal' space. From the planning department's perspective, there is not an issue because the applicant will be replacing the four spaces that currently exist per code. The second issue is related to the subgrade garage entrance located on Spring St near the Alps. The Engineering Department has concerns related to access of the garage because it requires traffic to go in a direction it is not supposed to go. The applicant and Engineering Department have met this week to work on alternatives. The Engineering Department is supportive of the direction the applicant has indicated they are going. More detail will be presented on the October 21St meeting. Ms. Garrow provided two additional public comment letters in support received as well as a letter from the applicant's attorney, Gideon Kaufman (Initially entered as Exhibit E.3, subsequently re-entered as Exhibit E.5 on the October 21St agenda packet). Mr. Kaufman's letter is in response to Mr. Jody (Joseph) Edwards's letter included in the packet in Exhibit E.2 (p 102). Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners had any questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow to further describe the location of the variance on the east wing at the end of Dean St that is 2.5 ft. Ms. Garrow described the variance as being in the alley and pointed it out on a drawing displayed on the screen (Exhibit C from September 16' packet). The proposed building extends out further than the existing building. Ms. Garrow described it as the east side yard setback. Mr. Gibbs pointed out it is identified as the easy wing setback in the table, at which Ms. Garrow replied it would be corrected. Mr. Gibbs referred to p 20 of the packet under the Lot Area — Alps Access Easement section. He asked if the 38,913 sf figure represented effective lot area and if it is different from net or gross lot area. Ms. Garrow explained the figure represents the area of the Alps easement. The effective lot area is the same as the net lot area and the actual number is 37, 113 sf. The 38,913 value was an intermediate calculation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) upgrades are required or not. Ms. Garrow responded there is a new transportation mitigation system which was approved by City Council in April, 2014. This is the first application brought forward under the new system. The applicant has included a transportation analysis in the back of their application for the TDMs and Multi -Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) plan. Their plan has been reviewed by both the Transportation and Engineering Departments and the applicant is exceeding their requirements. Part of the mitigating points for their trips they are receiving stem from the enhanced sidewalk areas, crosswalk areas, and bike racks. Mr. Erspamer asked what qualifications the city requires for those creating the TDMs. Ms. Garrow stated council wanted to in part ease the burden on applicants in the sense they didn't have to hire their own traffic engineer or set up a situation for dueling traffic engineers at City Council. The city conducted traffic counts for all the land use types and there are standardized trip generation numbers 4 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 for all the land uses. An applicant can plug in the land use types into the interactive tool to obtain trip generation TDM and MMLOS measures to be selected for mitigation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the resolution included fractionals or not. Ms. Garrow referred Mr. Erspamer to Section 3 of the resolution in which timeshares are explained. Mr. Erspamer asked about employee housing included in Section 5.2 of the resolution on p 28 of the packet. Regarding item d., he wanted to confirm if the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) made the proposal, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed it was an APCHA condition. She stated they typically do this for hotels. Mr. Erspamer wanted to confirm who is responsible for submitting the Subdivision/PD agreement. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant is responsible for this task. This is their project review for the planned development. The applicant goes from P&Z to City Council to obtain approval and then they have to make a second application for a planned development detailed review and final commercial design review which is reviewed by P&Z. Mr. Erspamer asked if there are any regulations for operating a roof -top deck. Ms. Garrow stated there are noise regulations specifying hours. She stated some applicants in the past have stated there would be no usage after a specified time, but it was not a city requirement she is aware of. Mr. Erspamer asked how the city approached identifying Dean as a street or alley. The North of Nell has windows and entrances on the south side. How did the city approach that as according to their definition of streets and alleys, now we have storefronts on an alley or street? Ms. Garrow stated on that side it is a street. She referred the commissioners to Exhibit E.3. An attachment (last page) to Gideon Kaufman's letter is from a 2006 staff memo addressing this issue during the applicant's last request for redevelopment. There is detailed information related to how Dean is sometimes labeled on maps, but this is an alley between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont properties. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Garrow was familiar with the Fox Crossing instance when Race Alley was changed to Race Street and wanted to know if it was the same philosophy. Ms. Garrow did not believe it was. This instance was part of the 1896 Willits map, so it was just how it was platted and how areas were annexed. From a city perspective, this is an alley. Mr. Erspamer asked if any of the requests are memorialized under DRC. Ms. Garrow stated the applicable comments have been incorporated into the resolution. Requirements related to oil and gas, separators and other technical requirements are included. Mr. Erspamer referenced on p 111 the drainage number one is in the mudflow zone. He asked if the applicant would have to mitigate the request. Ms. Garrow stated something like the example provided would be reviewed in the detail review. She referenced p 30 of the packet, Section 8.1 of the resolution which includes a detailed requirement for the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. If there were any issues it would be caught either during the detailed plan review or building permit application. Mr. Erspamer asked about the DRC comments referencing something being illegal. Ms. Garrow stated it was the fifth parking space on Durant mentioned earlier in the meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked what determines a lodge. Ms. Garrow stated it's the usage. A lodge is meant for short-term rental. The land use code has some limitations on how long you can stay in a lodge unit, which is 30 consecutive days at one time and up to 90 days in a calendar year. For a residential unit, P5 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 there is no such limitations. He asked for a clarification on fractional or free market be considered a lodge unit. Ms. Garrow stated a free market condominium is a free market residential unit. The fractional units are considered lodge units or fractional lodge units. Mr. Erspamer asked if they would need a front desk, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals only require 30 days advance notice of availability at which Ms. Garrow stated she believed that to be correct. She further stated in a proposal like this, the fractional units are taking advantage of and using the same front desk, food and other services of the traditional lodge units. Mr. McNellis asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement on the calculations at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He also asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement about the requirements for fractionals being used at which Ms. Garrow replied yes and that it was included in the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if all the numbers are correct at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He then asked if there was any six month availability on the free market condominium units. Ms. Garrow replied the free market residential units are wholly owned and one person can live there full time. They may rent it if they want under the short term rental program, but they are not required to rent the unit. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. He recapped their partial presentation from the previous meeting starting with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls out for lodges including a diverse bed base, diverse price point which this project is all about. The obsolescence of the build was discussed. He displayed a picture of the roof that needs to be fully replaced. In summary regarding the architecture, they want the building to look like it belongs in Aspen. A couple of key points covered previously include their desire to keep the same clientele and the mid -priced rate. The hotel is all about public spaces including the roof and second floor. He mentioned APCHA has already unanimously approved their affordable housing plan. About 66% of the building in regards to height, meets the current dimensional requirements which means it is 40 ft or less. The highest peak on Durant St. is 52 ft and has a 45 ft by the City's measurement. He re-emphasized the Triumph report, commissioned by the Community Development Department. He feels it is a good look what is required to build a 100 room hotel and make it mid -priced at the base of the mountain. The report looks at height, floors, composition of units. The eight residential fit the current code. They are either 1,500 sf or 2,000 sf done with transferrable development rights (TDRs). They are not asking for variances. Their outreach was discussed previously including hundreds of people using their website. They have had extensive outreach with the Glory Hole and the Nell. The applicant was able change a few things objected to by the Glory Hole and the Nell. He wanted to encourage the commissioners to look at the letters coming from a broad range of individuals that have come in since the last meeting. Ms. Sara Broughton, principal of Rowland Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the proposal. She walked thru their design process by first displaying the 1896 Sanborn Map showing the existing Sky Hotel and neighboring properties including the Little Nell, Aspen Alps, Glory Hole, W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The team viewed this early vicinity map to determine the pattern of development at the time. She showed there was a zero lot line development. They then performed a figure ground study displaying the footprints of the buildings in the City core and analyzed their heights. From the map displayed the buildings in gray are one to two story. The buildings in yellow are three story structures. The buildings in red are four story structures. The buildings in purple are five story structures. She pointed out landmark or iconic buildings defining Aspen including the following. • Court House (3 story, 47 ft); • Hotel Jerome (3-4 story, 54 ft) • Elks Building (3 story, 48 ft) Buildings neighboring the Sky Hotel included the following. • Aspen Square (4 story, 41 ft) • Limelight Hotel (4 story, 42 ft) • North of Nell (4 story, 35 ft) • Residences of the Little Nell (4 story) • Little Nell Hotel (45 ft) • St. Regis (58 ft) • Mountain Chalet (combination of 4 & 5 story, 52 ft) The pattern of development as you move south and closer to Aspen Mountain, the building are taller and particularly as you move up Galena St, there are some four and five story buildings including the Gant and the Aspen Alps. She also pointed out the Wheeler which is 64 ft tall. The next comparison she shared was an analysis of the lot of the Sky Hotel. The viewed the size of other Aspen hotels on the Sky Hotel lot to make sure they are compatible. She displayed the footprints of several hotels including the Hotel Jerome. This study pointed out they were consistent in regards to size and mass with other hotels. She then showed a diagram used to analyze different size rooms. Currently the Sky Hotel has an average size of 342 sf which does not meet current hotel standards. They are proposing 417 sf hotel rooms, which is still considerably smaller than the Limelight's rooms. She then discussed their approach to the architecture was to bring back the chalet style. This was a popular for early American ski towns in the 1950's. They wanted to bring a modern interpretation of the chalet style back in the design. She identified and displayed examples of the characteristics of the chalet style including wooden balconies, horizontal design features, stucco and wood, sloped roofs, open views, wood siding. She also displayed examples of modern interpretations of the style throughout Europe. They also looked at nature to inform them on patterns, scale, and textures. She then provided slides showing design perspectives. It was important to fit it in with the context of Aspen Mountain. It was also important to fit the architect with the context of the local neighborhood. The design utilizes horizontal designs, balconies, and sloped roof lines to break up the mass of the building. The front door opens to a double height lobby and lounge space including a community living room. The pool sits below the roofline so it is not visible. P7 W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 She then walked through the floor plans. On the ground level, they are increasing the width of the sidewalks, resolving some of the current grade issues. On the second level, there is an indoor/outdoor lounge area. It is reduced in size from the current outdoor pool area and it is moved west and up one floor. A buffer wall has been included as a sound buffer and visual separation from the neighbors. On the roof top, the area is never less than 10 ft from the side of the building. It is separated in to three zones, all accessed through the elevator and the stairs. There is a main lounge area and further east there is a relaxation area and continuing east is the quite area. This will be a public area. She then discussed the uses for each level. The basement level which will include parking, public ski lockers, meeting areas, fitness area and lodge and hotel uses. On the ground level there is the front door entering into the public area, lobby, affordable housing units and hotel lodge use. On the second level, there is the indoor/outdoor lounge, kitchen, public areas and hotel lodge use. On the third level is mainly hotel and lodge with some public area. On the fourth floor there is more public area, hotel lodge use and residential units. She then discussed the lobby space and displayed visuals of the space. John Sarpa then discussed the neighborhood compatibility including views, height and mass. In this lodge zone there are quite a few other buildings 45 ft and taller. This project is in the lodge zone where it belongs. It's not a lodge preservation area where the criteria is much different. He then read the definition of a lodge zone from the code. High occupancy lodging is the primary purpose of zone. When trying to balance the community interests, they started by looking the underlying zoning. He stated they have tried to work with staff and be sensitive to the issues of height and mass. In regards to views, he recognizes there are protected view planes in Aspen, but this not one of them. He then walked thru the shadow study view planes based on three times in a year and three times during one day. The view planes showed the existing and new shadow areas. He recognized the alley is icy and dangerous now from the existing building. In regards to heights, he stated they worked with a number of neighbors to improve the building from when it was first submitted. It was submitted in June. The Glory Hole residents asked them to consider pulling a unit back to open sight lines. The current application reflects this request. They are very aware of discussion of concerns from other neighbors based on a previous consideration of the hotel. Knowing this, they pushed back the units on the alley side. In regards to mass, their current mass is 43,000 sf. The new mass is 97,000 sf based on the following. 1. Increased average size of rooms 2. Removal of exterior hallways 3. Inclusion of four affordable housing units 4. Addition of residential component In regards to noise, Mr. Sarpa stated it is an important concern. He wanted to point out there are good codes in place. The Sky needs to be lively fun place, but with a sensitivity to the neighbors and community in general. The operator in Kimpton is seasoned and have been running the hotel for 12 years. They have also been working with acoustic engineer for many weeks and will submit a study by next meeting including what is projected in decibels and the impacts to all the neighbors. They are also 9.1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 working with sound specialists on the equipment to minimize the projection of the sound. The plan includes a quiet zone on the roof. He also reminded the commissioners the pool deck is 42 in below the roof line which will act as a barrier. Mr. Sarpa then discussed value & fairness. There has been discussion about the applicant stealing dollars and value from neighbors and putting it into the Sky building. He stated there are no code provisions for economic transfer from neighbors. He believes building a new hotel is a positive impact. Mr. Sarpa then discussed traffic and parking. They have been making good progress with the City Engineer. They are refining the plan and they will be providing a plan once the engineering staff approves it. The area in the alley is very busy with 19 surface parking spaces, underground parking entrance, trash trucks and delivery trucks. They plan to eliminate their parking spaces in the alley and once the entrance is moved to the other side of the building, the traffic will be reduced dramatically. Based on a request by a Chateau Dumont owner to make the alley much more park -like. Mr. Sarpa proceeded to plan with this request in mind. The design team proposed to both the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont to move three parking spaces and leave one. They offered to put the three spaces in the garage for free. The other owners did not want this and wanted to keep the surface parking spaces. The design team had also proposed changing the direction of the traffic. The design team is open to taking whatever direction determined by the City and the neighbors. They have no strong preference. Another issue was the determination of Dean Street or Dean Alley. He stated it has been defined as an alley. Mr. Sarpa stated when they first applied, they did not request a floor area ratio (FAR) variance. After Mr. Edwards and his clients stated they have the right to drive over the Sky's land which he pointed out on a map displayed. Mr. Sarpa stated they took that part of land out of the FAR calculation and by doing so, it requires them to ask for a variance for roughly 5,000 sf. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions of the staff and the applicant. Mr. Gibbs asked staff about the research into the 1960 thru 1962 ordinances, did they get a sense of the land exchange ratio. Ms. Garrow stated unfortunately not because the records in the 1960's are less than complete, the minutes are not clear and the actual text of the ordinances simply declare an emergency and the land is exchanged. There are copies of the ordinances in the agenda packet and the application. She further stated it is clear from the records we do have, there was some reason City Council felt it was important to move the location of Spring St and that is when the exchange mainly occurred. Mr. lames True, City Attorney, also added that it is hard to tell what the ratio was but it appears the Spring St right-of-way was wider than the new Spring St. It doesn't look to be equal, but it is hard to tell because there is not enough data on it. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant how they will enforce the quiet zones. Mr. Sarpa stated management is aware and when an event is booked, they have to know what the regulations are involved and share that information. If and when an event exceeds acceptable levels of noise, then management will directly deal with it. So part of it is contractual and part of is management must be vigilant to ensure they are adhered to. Pe W.A. W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to confirm there will be three levels of sound for the three zones on the rooftop and how would the standards be set for the zones. Mr. Sarpa described the two zones, one being public and the quiet areas as non-public. The non-public areas are designed to be quiet. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to repeat the shadow studies, not assuming the footprints of the buildings. He wants to see the shadows as they show on the buildings. Mr. Sarpa replied they could provide the study. Ms. Tygre asked if the pool would be open to the public at which Mr. Sarpa replied yes. She asked what would happen if the public became so popular in the summer that everyone brings their kids to play and it interferes with enjoyment by the guests. Mr. Cory Enloe stated they currently deal with this now and it depends on the time of day. There are also spend requirements during peak usage times. He it regulates itself. If it gets too rowdy, parents will leave. The new design provides a quiet area for the guests. Ms. Tygre has a concern about conflicts between public and private. She also wanted to clarify if the free market residential units on the top floor include TDRs. Mr. Sarpa stated there are five units that need TDRs and three that do not. The displayed footprint includes the units requiring the TDRs. Mr. McNellis asked the applicant if the neighboring properties including the Alps and the Chateau Dumont deal with similar spring runoff issues including seepage of water into foundation areas. Mr. Sarpa stated he cannot answer for how the surrounding properties deal with the issues. Mr. Sunny Vann relayed the story about part of Aspen being evacuated from a threat of mudflows from a very wet spring. Subsequent to that event, City undertook a 100 year mud flow evaluation and mapped various zones of increasing vulnerability. One small corner near the garage (southwest corner of the building) encroaches into the mud flow zone. All the engineering department asked the applicant to demonstrate the construction is sufficient to mitigate potential impacts. An analysis will be conducted to handle the pressures. A drainage plan will also address upslope draining as well. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Garrow if she had a copy of the map. Ms. Garrow stated she would ask the Engineering Department for a copy of the map including the entire runoff area. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant had considered snowmelting for Dean Alley. Mr. Sarpa stated snowmelting of that size is typically frowned upon because of the energy required. You can't use solar so you would have to use boilers. From an energy standpoint it is not feasible. Mr. Sarpa stated they would be open to snowmelting certain areas to make it safer. Mr. Erspamer asked about the Triumph study and asked Ms. Garrow to confirm that staff had stated not to pay attention to the study. Ms. Garrow replied she intended to attach it to the packet, but had not. She will attach it for the next time. It was a report the City commissioned related to the feasibility of lodge development in the lodge zoned district. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant to confirm if the previously stated 60% was the percentage of units or floor area. Ms. Garrow and Mr. Sarpa both stated it was the floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any mechanical (elements) on the gabled roofs? Mr. Sarpa state it will be located on the ground. P10 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked where the elevator overruns would be located. Mr. Sarpa replied they would be about 12 feet from the roof deck to the top. The roof deck is sunken 42 inches. Ms. Garrow stated they would look at this and clarify for the next meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any LEED certification. Mr. Sarpa stated it has not yet been contemplated and they have not selected a LEED level yet. Mr. Erspamer asked if they know who the acoustic engineer is for the applicant. Mr. Sarpa stated the acoustic engineer is D L Adams from Denver. Mr. Erspamer asked if the top of the gable roof was lowered to 40 ft, would it eliminate the extra 5,000 sf they are asking for. And would it bring the edges below the ground? Ms. Broughton replied they would have to study it. Mr. Erspamer asked if the application needs to meet zoning and vacated areas code, specifically code section 26.710.024. Ms. Garrow stated that section does apply to the application that is why there is a discussion in the memo related to the vacated rights of way and the city's code changed in 1988. Prior to 1988 areas in vacated rights of way were not deducted from lot area and after 1988 they were deducted. That is why staff is proposing the City Council amend those ordinances to clearly state the lot area should not be deducted. Mr. Gibbs then asked if we can make this a condition of the approval. Mr. True stated it would have to be done. Mr. Gibbs asked what if City Council decides not to amend the ordinances. Mr. True stated that would be a different issue. Mr. True stated you would have to assume City Council would amend the ordinances for the application to be approved. He stated P&Z could put it in as a recommendation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant has firm sf numbers instead of approximate in regards to the net leasable square footage. Mr. Vann stated the amount of sf was reduced significantly, he stated approximately. It is irrelevant because they will be building back less than what exists today. Ms. Garrow stated they currently have about 5,200 sf and they are proposing 3,300 sf. Mr. Erspamer asked if the spa is for the public or for the owners. Mr. Sarpa stated there is no spa. Mr. Erspamer asked the height of the railings. Ms. Broughton stated 42 inches which is international building code. The rooftop creates a railing around the top to the building. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals would be made available 30 days before to the public. Mr. Vann stated it is a requirement of the city code. Their time share use plan must be in compliance with the City's timeshare regulations. They are not requesting any variances. Mr. Erspamer asked if they have a computer rendering of the neighborhood including Dean and Spring. Mr. Scott McHale stated they have not been fully rendered. Mr. Sarpa stated they have one looking down at the Chateau Chaumont looking from original back down the alley toward the building. Mr. Gibbs wanted to clarify on the shadow studies to see the west side of Dumont as well as the south. Ms. Broughton agreed. Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. P11 11 W.A. W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Ms. Kathy Weiss has a unit in Chateau Dumont on the northwest corner. She asked Mr. Sarpa if the shadow study included the area between the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont. Mr. Erspamer stated Mr. Sarpa would address the question after public comment has been closed. She would like to see a shadowing on the restricted easement between the buildings. She also wanted to point out the new building would shroud the two Chateau buildings in shadow if built as proposed. She feels it is not being sensitive to the neighbors. The corner where the current entrance to the 39 degree bar is located is very busy. She stated there are many times with cars with local plates have parked in their four spaces. Mr. John Corcoran is the general manager of the Aspen Alps. He wanted to acknowledge he has worked with the design team and holds them in high regard. He referred to a letter their attorney sent to Mr. Sarpa back in June outlining some concerns of the Aspen Alps about the project. He wanted review a couple of them. Mr. Sarpa has met with Mr. Corcoran, the board president and the representative of building 100. The first concern is the height of the building, specifically on the east side. He was pleased to hear staff's comments regarding the size and mass of the building. He fells it will have an excessive affect by eliminating existing views, ambient light and the residences in the 100 building are concerned about a tunnel effect that may occur. The architecture on the entire side was telling of accommodations made. He does not feel there have been any accommodations made on the Aspen Alps side of the building. He feels it is a bit monolithic and walling us off from community. The construction plan he viewed on August Stn included a fencing off of the parking spaces at the 100 building. He understands the applicant has proposed the parking arrangements for 10 months during the construction. But he has been told that the blocked access can only exist with an agreement and there is no such agreement. Mr. Corcoran then stated the noise is a big issue. He can hear the noise from inside the building. He acknowledged he and Cory have tried to work on the issue. Sometimes their mitigating efforts work and sometimes they don't. He knows it is a difficult and negative element. There are people trying to sleep that are closer to the music than people working in the Sky Hotel. One of his concerns with moving the pools up without mitigation will be that the problem will be moved past the 100 and 200 buildings up the hill to the 500, 700 and 800 buildings. Mr. Corcoran is also concerned about the stability of the soils. The Aspen Alps has experienced movement in the buildings in the past. His final concern is in regards to the traffic on Spring St during the season is a nightmare. Delivery Trucks, vans, cars. Mr. David Perry with the Aspen Skiing Company, is representing the Aspen Skiing Company. They also own and operate the Little Nell Hotel as well as the Limelight Hotel. He feels there is a very strong need for redevelopment, replacement of the lodging sector. The minimum figures show for the past 20 years or so the community has lost in the excess of 2,000 pillows of rentable bed space and more than 20 small lodges. The lodging base has been in decline. Comparable areas have had their lodging base increased. In tracking the next generation of visitors, we need moderate priced lodging and a young, vibrant property. He also described his three bubble chart as it covers the tourism economy. The three sectors that have to be in balance for everything to work properly include access (air, roads, etc.), facilities (mountain, restaurants and activities), and lodging. Lodging is slipping out of balance. They hear it from guests, surveys, international tour operators. The offerings here are inconsistent. He is also speaking on behalf of the Little Nell, the Sky's direct neighbor. The Little Nell is a four story building that is 45 ft high. The third and fourth floors facing the Sky Hotel will absolutely be directly impacted by the size of the buildings. He anticipates the construction to impact and the view planes will be negatively 2K 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 impacted. He expects noise from the roof to be an issue and he stated the project team has been receptive to comments. He stated they support the Sky Hotel development and will accept the tradeoffs of the issues. Mr. Michael Neuman owns a unit in the Chateau Chaumont and has been coming to Aspen for 50 years. He and his wife have skied all over the country and Europe and the chose Aspen when they decided to buy. He asked Ms. Garrow if she could display a picture of Spring St towards the mountain as it exists today. She replied she did not. Currently he is thrilled to see the mountain as he drives up the street. He feels people come to Aspen to see the mountain, not the hotels. He has noticed over the years, the buildings are getting larger in height and mass. He stated it was'Vailinating'. He stated the displays shown by the applicant of other buildings in Aspen did not show the distance between buildings. He is purporting the vertical side of the proposed hotel is very close to the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He thinks it should be part of the discussion. He also noticed the applicant was kind enough to set back the fourth floor. He also noticed the setback does not run the entire length of the building. Mr. Sarpa asked if he was referring to the top or the bottom. Mr. Erspamer stopped the conversation and asked Mr. Neuman to phrase a question the applicant can respond to later in the meeting. He also wanted to know if the setback on the top floor runs the entire length of the east -west wing of the building. His last question was in the dramatic increase of sf of the proposed building, it provides for an increase of 90-102 beds or pillows. It seems like an awful lot of new space for a relatively small percentage gained in rooms or pillows. Mr. Martin Mata, an architect in the valley for twenty -something years, referred to a shadow study completed at the request of the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont. The study shows some of the impact the Sky Hotel will have on the two neighboring properties. The study was divided into three categories including visual impacts, shadow impacts, and urban space impacts. Although there are not protected corridors, the impacts to the two properties are very, very real. No matter where you are looking at the new building from the two properties (third floor, first floor, inside, outside, etc.), the existing views of the ski trails and gondola are pretty much gone. In addition, the new building has in effect a fifth story roof top deck. The emergency stair towers, elevator shaft, the shaped structures will be visible from the second and third floors of the Chateau buildings. The largest impact they believe will be sound. It will be interesting to see what the engineers say about it, but we all know sound carries extremely well, especially on a quiet night. All it takes is two people have a conversation can be very annoying to someone trying to sleep. With the Sky looking for the young clientele, it doesn't combine with the family oriented uses in the surrounding neighbors. The shadow impacts show the shadows interact with the fagade of the two buildings. The things to note here are these impacts will start sometime in late September through March. The impacts cover the entire winter season, forever. The microclimate of the Dean St. will be colder and the ice situation worse. The urban space impact involves the main entrance to the Chateau buildings. He compared Dean (alley/street) between the Sky Hotel — Chateau and the more open North of Nell and residences of the Little Nell building. He commended staff for asking the applicant to address the height. Mr. Gibbs then made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:30 pm. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs, Mr. McNellis, and Mr. Erspamer vote yes. Ms. Tygre votes no. Motion carries with a vote of 3:1. Ms. Cindy Dillon lives on the third floor of the Chateau Chaumont. She and her husband chose their condominium to relax and to obtain rental income. She feels the Sky's proposal will eliminate both of these reasons. She leads a busy life and needs the tranquility her unit provides. Many of their reviews on 13 P13 W.A. W.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) mention the views and how quiet it is. They usually rent their unit to one to two families or eight people. The proposal eliminates the two reasons for purchasing unit. She spoke with CJ Oliver regarding the noise ordinance. He stated from 7am to 11pm, there is a 65 decibel level in Aspen. It drops to 60 decibels from 11pm to 7am. According to CJ, just two people have a normal conversation is 60-65 decibels. She stated 45 decibels can wake a sleeping person. She provided other examples including a dance club with 110 decibels, rock music has 110-130 decibels, and idling truck has 72 decibels from 24 ft away. This is a very big concern for her. The noise carries more in the mountains due to the low humidity. Currently she can be awakened by two people talking outside at 2am. On Labor Day, the police were called at 2am because 5-6 people were talking in the court yard. There were also called on the same day because maybe 10 people were sitting in a Jacuzzi playing music. Their buildings are very subject to the noises with elderly and families. They don't want their views to disappear or the noise to be heard. They understand they need to renovate, but not at their financial and emotional expense. Mr. Todd Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit purchased in 1975. He has the same concerns that have been mentioned about height, size, views, and sound. Another concern he has is the amount of setback from Dean St for the proposed building. He doesn't feel they can marshal all their building equipment, supplies and activities on the proposed setback without shutting down Dean St which their only means of access. Previously, his wife had to call the rescue squad for him. The ambulance came down Dean St for him. If in the future an ambulance cannot access the building and someone dies, it will be because of the Sky Hotel and the P&Z commission allowing the building without the setbacks. Ms. Carrie Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit #14. Everyone visiting their unit enjoys the views of Aspen Mountain. The bedrooms have views and light coming in. She is an artist and often paints with the light. Years ago, their 90 year old Mothers visited and she cannot imagine walking down Dean St if it were any icier. She is concerned about the shadows affecting the melting ice and snow. Several years ago her husband collapsed and she called 911. If the street had been blocked by vehicles, it's questionable if he would have received the timely treatment he needed. Dean Alley is their main access. Mr. Jody Edwards is representing Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He will not regurgitate the letter on p 102 of the packet, but he asked P&Z to please read it. He wanted to comment on the Triumph Report. It seems to be very short on detail but it appears to assume you are buying the land and you need the free market units to make it work financially. That is not the case here. More importantly regarding the assumption of the mid -priced hotel unit, there is nothing in the application stating they are going to deed restrict the price of the units. What they are going to do, is that they will charge whatever the price they can get. If it's $1,000 per night or $400 per night, that is what they will charge. This is not a mid -priced location. In regards to compatibility with the neighborhood, Gideon's letter he received at 3:35pm, he quotes the standard stating the project should be compatible with or enhance the cohesiveness of the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development pattern. He told that is what P&Z should be thinking about. The development patterns are a little different than the other 40 ft tall buildings. The patterns here include 2-3 story buildings on three sides. In regards to Dean St, an eight year old staff memo does not operate to set aside or trump existing code. He referenced his letter describing the code as defining Dean as a street and not an alley. Given that it is a street, the applicant should address the special review criteria for trash and delivery areas. If it is done it will make more sense to relocate the trash and delivery area. On the direction of travel, during the site visit representations were made that the applicant does not care which direction the traffic flows. The Chateau owners need clarity. If the traffic goes clockwise, it will force exits onto Durant which would be 20 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 dangerous. The eastern wing should remain the height it is today which is compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Casandra Foister is the Director of Marketing at the Sky. She wants to follow up on what Mr. Perry stated previously. She travels everywhere to sell the Sky and she always sells the destination first. The way it sits right now, she is having a difficult time selling it. She is losing it to other resorts, not competitors. We are not getting the young crowd. She knows others are worried about it, but that can't keep going with the way it is. Mr. Peter Grenney agrees with Casandra. The town doesn't match the building and it is a dated facility. It is a progressive community and we need to work with the owners and rehab the building. It is a vital asset for visitors and locals. He supports the application. Mr. Skippy Mesirow has lived here nine years and lives a couple blocks from the Sky. He understands this is not a perfect project. He sees a continued encroachment on height on the town as well as free market residential in yet another building. It is the economics and the laws that we have. We have gone into a direction of incentivizing projects that we need as a community. In this way, the applicant has approached this within the letter of the law and we need to respect that and perhaps revisit this as a community. As it stands, it is a great project that speaks to the history and future of Aspen. This project speaks to bring back the vitality that is part of Aspen's soul. If this project is not built, there's going to be something that is shorter and smaller but will be prohibitively expensive and keep young people from coming to this town and will continue the trend of the aging of Aspen. He encourages everyone to work with the applicant. He supports the project. Ms. Crystal Logan, director of the Aspen Community Programs at the Aspen Institute, is representing the nonprofit sector from the ACRA board. She grew up here in the valley and she agrees with Mr. Mesirow, Mr. Grenney, and Mr. Perry. She feels the city staff has been thoughtful and responsive. She feels we need to find ways to update the bed base. She feels we have lost a considerable amount of moderately based lodges in town. Instead of leaving things to market forces, we should be proactive in supporting the lodges that are in a position to upgrade. She is in favor of the project and feels it ads vitality to the resort. Ms. Briana Von Ohlen is the Food and Beverage Director at the Sky Hotel. She has worked there for five years at 39 Degrees. She feels it is a unique property in that it welcomes locals and tourists making it a unique place to blend and for everyone to interact. In regards to the lounge, there are multiple times it will rain during apres ski inside, not outside. The building and product no longer reflects who they are and they cannot stay competitive. She is in favor of the project. Mr. Malik Enloe is the son of Corey Enloe who is the general manager of the Sky Hotel. He agrees with Mr. Mesirow and feels we should focus on the big picture aspect because we are competing with the big resorts. A lot of what he has heard tonight is that some want to keep Aspen as it has been for many years. He has learned lately that humans do not like change and what they want Aspen to be may not what Aspen needs to be. Mr. Erspamer then asked the board for any questions or clarifications regarding public comment. Mr. Erspamer requested that Mr. Edwards client's issues were included in the minutes. 15 P15 W.A. W.A. Regular Meeting Plannin! & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Erspamer then opened for staff rebuttal and clarification of the evidence presented by the applicant. Given the remaining time available, Ms. Garrow requested the commission provide direction so she can provide clarification at the next meeting. Mr. Sarpa agreed. Mr. Erspamer closed staff and applicant rebuttal Mr. Erspamer stated it was an awesome presentation. He finds it challenging to know when you provide a benefit to one party, it takes something away from another. The project is good and has all the bells and whistles for what the community wants. He feels they have no criteria to evaluate regarding the views. He encouraged the applicant to listen to the requests of the neighbors as stated by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Erspamer stated he would like to see a 10pm deadline on the roof top. He feels it would be the only way it would fly in the community. He understated the Sky wants to provide a fun atmosphere, but neighbors want to sleep. He encouraged the applicant to be aware of the quality of life as included in the AACP. He is also concerned about circulation and wondered what would happen if the building was dropped five feet. Mr. McNellis likes the project and the direction it is going. He felt the site visit revealed a lot to him. He hears what the adjacent property owners are saying and agrees there should be a greater nod the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. He's not sure what that is, but would like to see the applicant accommodate their needs better. He likes the possibility of the vitality the project could bring to the area. He is likely to vote in favor if some of issues could be accommodated. It was stated the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont don't want their surface parking removed. He would like to know if there could be improvements made to Dean St to make it a social and community amenity for the Sky Hotel, Chateau Chaumont, Chateau Dumont and the entire community. He would also like to see it explored if there are any mud flow accommodations that could be made for the Aspen Alps as a nod to them. Mr. Gibbs feels the shadowing on the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont are the biggest issue in his mind. He thinks quality of life is important. While they don't have an explicit criteria in the code, it's certainly part of the AACP which underpins all P&Z considerations. He wants to look at the shadowing in more detail. Ms. Tygre has a real problem with the roof pool. She feels there will be real conflict between public and private uses of the building. It seems to her the building is upside down. A lot of the problems would be resolved if the applicant did not have the roof top pool. She also questioned the amount of free market space and would like to hear a justification of how selling free market units one time will continue to fund a hotel operation for the next 20 years. This has never been answered to her satisfaction. She would also like to see story poles. Mr. Gibbs moved to continue the meeting to October 21, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion carried. P16 16 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager P17 17 W.A. W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 U Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid and Keith Goode. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer stated he objects to the current method used to obtain feedback from commissioners. Instead of email, he feels it should be handled in in a public meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow wanted to notify the commissioners she had sent out emails to them regarding the outreach for lodging. Staff is trying to obtain additional feedback prior to making changes to the previously named lodge incentive program. There will be four meetings upcoming the last week of October. She asked the commissioners and the public to RSVP to her. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he had written a letter to council regarding the Triumph Study previous to the Sky Hotel application. He feels it was done by a special interest group and should be disregarded in its entirety. Public Hearing - 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel - Planned Development Mr. Erspamer opened the continued hearing for the Sky Hotel — Planned Development. Ms. Garrow provided a review of the application. The property is located at the base of Aspen Mountain along Durant Ave and Spring St. In terms of the review, P&Z is a recommending body on seven different reviews: 1. Planned Development 2. Commercial Design 3. Conditional Use Review 4. Special Review 5. Timeshare Review 6. Subdivision Review 7. Three Growth Management Reviews W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 She stated the applicant has modified their proposal. The project now includes 106 units and keys with 107 total bedrooms for an increase of four units. The number of commercial and affordable housing units remain the same. They have decreased the amount of free market residential units by two. Seventy subgrade parking spaces are still in the application along with 13 at -grade spaces dedicated to the Aspen Alps. The public amenity space is slightly above 13,000 sf. She then showed slides depicting the dimensions for the original and revised proposals. Overall, the sf has decreased. There has been about a 5% increase in the lodge space to about 65%. There was a decrease in free market residential space. The proposal still has varying heights with the highest point being 45 ft. They are requesting a variance for the elevator overrun of 4 ft where 50 ft is allowed. This is clarified in the resolution. This is needed to provide ADA access because it is a publicly accessible roof. There have been various height reductions in the roof lines. On the Dean Alley side there is a changed roof form along the east side. There is also a lowered gable along Durant Ave. There are some decreases in the fourth floor footprint along the alley towards Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont as well as the area facing the Aspen Alps. She displayed a slide showing the outline of the building where it was in the original proposal and where it is in the current proposal. Additional slides demonstrated the differences between the original and current proposal for the Dean Alley side as well as the Aspen Alps side. Staff feels the changes made went a long way in addressing concerns from staff and the commissioners. The applicant continues to ask for a small setback variance along the alley. The net lot area is the same in this proposal as the original. It does include the former vacated rights of way from 1961 and 1962. Staff feels this is an appropriate location for some lodging massing and the applicant has addressed the mass and scale, particularly on the east wing. The current proposal decreases the amount of commercial space, but the same character of what currently exists. The current proposal includes 70 spaces in the garage. Fifty-one spaces are required for the project. Because of the way stacked spaces are counted per code, the calculated total is 48, which is three spaces less than required. Staff believes the number of spaces available is appropriate based on the nature of the garage and valet operation. In regards to the timeshare review, the original proposal requested three fractional units and the current proposal requests five fractional units. There were two free market units that turned into lodge fractional units. In regards to the Growth Management Review, the current proposal is requesting 34 lodge pillows with 17 lodge bedrooms, six free market residential units, and five affordable housing units. With the changing in the massing, they now meet the affordable housing requirements. They are meeting the FTE requirement in both the lodge and free market residential areas. P19 W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Some of the other issues brought up in the previous meeting: • The Engineering department had concerns around the valet area and the garage entrance. The project team met with the Engineering department and have created valet parking on the property instead of the street. The building has been pulled back on Spring St to accommodate the valet area and parking spaces. The Engineering department feels this issue has been resolved with these changes. There were a number of noise concerns by the members of the public as well as the P&Z. Staff has conferred with the Environmental Health Department and have added a condition to the resolution recommending a detailed noise study be required as part of the detailed planned development review. The applicant has provided a noise study as part of the revised proposal. The Environmental Health Department feels this a good first step. The applicant will review the study in more detail. Members of P&Z requested shadow studies from the previous meeting which have been included in the current proposal. Other issues were raised previously regarding the alley. Ms. Garrow stated Dean is an alley and not a street. In regards to the direction on Dean Alley, the Engineering Department recommends maintaining the current direction of traffic on Dean Alley which will be incorporated into the resolution. Ms. Garrow provided a slide showing a snapshot of a 1969 engineering map depicting Dean as a street. After block 102 it turns into an alley. P&Z had requested a copy of the mudflow map which is now included in the packet. Ms. Garrow provided a slide showing a portion of the Sky Hotel in the mud flow area. The applicant is required to address this as part of the detailed review. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project. The P&Z's recommendation would be recommending Council to approve the project. Ms. Garrow has provided a red lined version of the resolution. There were a few scrivener's errors regarding the numbers in the table that have been corrected. Ms. Garrow wanted to point out the additional section on p. 9 of the resolution in the packet requiring the applicant to meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place, specifically all ground floor affordable housing units having access to the interior corridors to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Garrow also wanted to point out they have received a few letters from the public. These additional letters are included in exhibit E.7. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for any questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked when the noise study p 6 of the packet would be submitted. Ms. Garrow stated the study would be submitted as part of their detail review of the Planned Development Detail review. Mr. Gibbs asked for the study be required at application. Mr. McNellis asked about the standards for the public amenity space and design standards in the Planned Development review. Ms. Garrow replied standards are included in the packet starting on p 26. P20 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked what it would take to convert the entire lodge into a fractional. Ms. Garrow stated a Land Use and Subdivision Review would be possible. He then asked if there was anything in the code currently to prevent lodges from being converted to fractionals. Ms. Garrow stated a fractional is a type of ownership, it is not a type of use. In regards to renting the fractional units there are protections in place for the owners and renters. Mr. Erspamer asked for a definition of the commercial design simplifications as listed on p 20 of the 9/16/2014 packet. Ms. Garrow stated there were a number of forms along the Alps side of the project. Staff asked the applicant to reduce the number of forms which they have in the current proposal. Mr. Erspamer asked for the definition of open space. Ms. Garrow stated public amenity space must be open to space. The applicant is proposing a combination of at grade public amenity space, second floor space and rooftop space. All the spaces have public access. Mr. Erspamer stated he looked in the resolution and did not see a time identified for the public amenity space. He asked if there should be a time when the public should not have access to the area. Ms. Garrow stated although resolutions do not typically include a time limit for public amenity space, a recommendation could be added. Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Erspamer if he wanted to distinguish a time for the public and one for people staying at the hotel. Mr. Erspamer wasn't sure if something shouldn't be added for non -usage in regards to security. Mr. Erspamer asked about a requirement for the lodge to be open for six months. Ms. Garrow replied that nothing from the rescinded Ordinance 19-2014 is included because it was not codified. Mr. Erspamer asked what the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be if this was a rectangular building with a flat roof. Does a flat roof increase your FAR value? Ms. Garrow replied they would be about the same. Mr. Erspamer stated he did not understand the statement in Section 6 of the resolution regarding the snow remaining on the site. Ms. Garrow stated it is a requirement from the Engineering Department of the Detail Review of the Planned Development and it concerns neighboring properties. Mr. Erspamer asked if the transportation matrix was developed utilizing any scientific analysis or standards. Ms. Garrow stated this had been discussed at the previous meeting. The relatively new transportation system was adopted in April this year. It was a two year process with a nationally known consultant who helped make it Aspen specific. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant needs to submit a bond before they break ground and Ms. Garrow replied this is covered in Section 7 of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is required before a building permit at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. The applicant has submitted a preliminary Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and will submit a final plan including the monitoring portion before the detailed review. The monitoring plan will be a condition of their certificate of occupancy (CO). Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the required height of the elevator shaft to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Garrow stated the code requirement is ten ft above the height of the building which is 50 ft and the applicant is requesting 54 ft. 4 P21 W.B. W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked if the direction of the Dean Alley was included in the resolution at which Ms. Garrow replied it is included in Section 8.5. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. He stated they wanted to go thru the proposal in more detail including their response to the commission's and public's previously made comments. He stated there are four main areas they want to cover including: 1. Traffic and Parking 2. Noise 3. Shadow Studies 4. Architecture Changes In regards to traffic and parking, they have been talking with LSC Transportation Consultants for some time regarding the all the streets and alley, and traffic patterns involved with the project. Both LSC and the City Engineering department identified a few ideas for the project team to consider. They were happy to adopt the City Engineering's approach which is included in the packet. In regards to noise, the project team is conducting an extensive study. Mr. Sarpa feels it is a great idea to add a section to the resolution to include ambient noise in the detailed noise study. The project team is working with D L Adams on the study in the second floor lounge area and the rooftop. They also have some mitigations to discuss in the meeting. The new shadow studies will display how the shadows hit buildings. Part of the architecture changes were a result of the shadow studies. They have changed a number of the roof forms causing the shadows on Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. They will also review the important architecture changes including height reductions of the highest peak and the east wing. Two residential units have also been changed to hotel units increasing the number of keys. The top floor has been squeezed due to increased setbacks to improve the sight lines. Mr. Scott McHale, project manager, then discussed the traffic circulation patterns. He showed slides of the existing traffic patterns including the Sky and surrounding buildings, streets, alleys, parking, garage entry and trash. The current configuration creates congestion at the entry. Cars remain in the right-of- way on the street upon arrival. The trash pickups block access to the area. He also showed a slide demonstrating the required turn radius for a fire truck in Dean Alley which is not possible with the current space configuration. The project team met with the City Engineering department who asked them to review three options regarding modified traffic patterns. Mr. McHale provided a slide depicting the first option. The option takes into consideration the best way for the guests, pedestrians, deliveries arrive to enter the building. The new design shows both the vehicle and pedestrian entrances on the same location to reduce the amount of conflicts on other areas of the site. This option eliminates the cars from the alley altogether. Deliveries, laundry, and trash trucks for the neighbors. This provides the space necessary for the fire VZ W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 truck to turn. The new configuration includes three arrival spaces in front of the hotel and one departure slot for the valet to pick up and drop off cars from the garage. Mr. McHale went over a typical path a guest car arriving is typically driven now including time on Spring St, Durant Ave and garage access for arrival. He also described the path typically driven now for a departing car which includes Dean Alley, Original, Durant Ave, and then on Spring St including a U-turn at the end of Spring St. Mr. McHale stated there is significant impact by moving the entrances to Spring St. By moving the entrances, the resulting traffic improvements compiled by LSC includes a 21% reduction on Spring St., 56% reduction on the cul-de-sac (end of Spring St), 51% reduction on Durant Ave, 89% reduction on Dean Alley for Sky Hotel traffic. Mr. McHale then discussed the sound study conducted by DL Adams, acoustic consultants out of Denver. They looked at the two major areas of concern including outdoor events on the rooftop and the lower level patio. One slide showed the decibel level readings for the lower patio identifying the only noncomplying area for the daytime hours is the impact on the Little Nell which is measured at 60.6 (just over the level of 60 as defined in the noise ordinance). In order to be compliant, the consultants stated they could increase the sound barrier or wall to a total of seven ft. One option they are studying currently is to have a temporary three ft transparent wall made of glass or some other material. The wall could be installed for special events so it would only be there when needed. Mr. Sarpa stated they are sensitive to the visual impact, so this barrier would only be added for special events. Mr. McHale continued with noise assessment on the rooftop stating most of the activity is on the north wing between the Chateau Dumont and the Little Nell. The pool and deck are recessed within the roof form, 3.5 ft down, forming a natural barrier. Speakers would be built into the sides of the barrier. The result on the Little Nell side is measured at 62.4 decibels. On the south end near the Little Nell, it is measured at 58.2 decibels. The Chateau Dumont side is measured at 61.5 decibels and near the Chateau Chaumont and the Alps it is below the 60 decibel level. The temporary barrier would be installed on the west and east sides to reduce the decibel levels. Slides were then shown to demonstrate what the barrier may look like. The sound wall for the outdoor lounge would have a solid wall of 3.5 ft with a 3.5 ft tall temporary barrier added on top. On the upper roof deck the roof form provides a 3.5 ft wall with a 4.5 ft temporary barrier added. They have also been speaking with local audio\video consultants to investigate the design and engineering of the sound system to allow them to constantly monitor the sound. Monitors would be installed in different areas to monitor the decibel levels outside of the Sky property. They are confident they can work with their engineers to come up with a solution to accommodate the local noise ordinance. Mr. McHale stated they have also added special event space on the main level for louder events. Mr. McHale then displayed slides of the current roof plan of the Sky depicting areas less than and over 40 ft. They increased the setbacks on the north and south sides including the side facing the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. The setback on the alley side at 13 ft and setbacks of five, seven and nine ft on the other side. On the north fagade there is a 13 ft setback. Mr. McHale then displayed a series slides of three dimensional shadow studies for June, September, December and February. The sun is at its highest point in the year during June and at its lowest point of the year in December. The slides depicted the shadow on the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont from the current Sky Hotel and the proposed Sky Hotel (and neighboring Glory Hole property). Their analysis identified this part of town during December is in shadow by 2:30 PM from Shadow Mountain. During P23 W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 February by 4 PM this part of town is in shadow. They also utilized Aspen Skiing Company's camera of the city to see when the city is covered by shadow. In September by 5:30 PM town is in shadow. In October by 4:50 PM the area of town is into the shadow. In November by 2:40 PM that area of town is in shadow. In December, the shadow covers the town by 2:30 PM. Mr. McHale stated they do not feel the proposed new building has a substantial impact on the shadows. Ms. Sara Broughton, principal of Rowland Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the proposal. They have made some significant architecture changes based on the comments from the commissioners and the neighbors. She feels the modifications she will present tonight keep up with spirit of Aspen. This is important to be compatible with the balance of community, neighbors, resort and natural environment. Ms. Broughton briefly reviewed the background and modern use of the chalet style including sloped roofs, horizontal detailing, wooden balconies, and the use of wood and stucco. She then reviewed the floor plans. The basement includes underground parking, public area, and lodge uses. On the ground level on the Spring St side, the building has been pushed back five ft to accommodate the changes made for the transportation pattern modifications. The ground floor includes public areas, hotel lodge, affordable housing and a fully enclosed special event space. This space can be used by the public, guests for very loud events. The second level includes public area (community living room, indoor\outdoor lounge), hotel and lodge uses. The third level includes a public area and hotel and lodge use. On the fourth level they increased the setback starting on the north wing with 13 ft setbacks facing the alley and setbacks averaging seven ft on the south side facing the Aspen Alps. They have reduced the residential by two to six units. They have increased the lodging by four keys to 106 keys. The fourth floor consists of public, hotel and lodge use and residential. The roof deck is significantly smaller because of the increased setbacks. They are still maintaining on the west side the more active part of the roof deck with a large pool and outdoor lounge area. This is the main entertaining area. The more passive portions of the roof deck are significantly smaller (almost 2,000 sf smaller than the previous proposal). She next covered the modifications on the alley starting with the roof. They moved the roof by 90 degrees. The gable height was reduced by five ft. Similarly along the Aspen Alps side, they broke up the mass, increased the setbacks, introduced 2.5 story elements to break up the overall scale and lowered the overall height of the building. On the corner of Durant and Spring St, the overall height of the building has been reduced by almost two ft. Additional modifications have been made along Spring St including a new entrance and wider sidewalks. They feel the modifications further articulate the chalet style with the entrance. In summary, the modifications include lowering the highest peak on Durant by almost two ft, reconfiguring the entry/arrival on Spring St, increasing the setbacks along Spring St. resulting in a reduction of the overall floor area and drastically reducing the net traffic around the building, reducing the south fagade facing the Aspen Alps of setbacks of five, seven and nine ft to break up the mass and scale of the building as well as the height, reducing the north fagade facing the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont resulting in reduced floor area with setbacks of 11 and 13 ft to minimize the shadowing on the neighboring structures. The three story chalet peak element was reduced five ft. The fourth level chalet roof form on the northeast corner has been revised for better sun angles to minimize shadowing and increase sun exposure. The revised inventory mix now includes two residences, each reduced by 500 sf; two residential units, each reduced by 250 sf; two residential units were changed over to fractionals so they are now included in the lodging inventory of 106 units. The setback revisions to the fourth floor reduced 1,880 sf on the roof deck to minimize its impact on the neighbors. yzI W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Sarpa concluded the presentation by stating they have invested a great deal of time in the design of the new hotel, listened to try to fit the project with the neighborhood. He feels they are trying to revitalize a very important sector, the mid -priced market. He expects a reduction to the impact on the neighbors with the new design and latest technology to mitigate sound and traffic situations. Mr. Erspamer asked the board for questions of the applicant. Mr. Goode asked the applicant to confirm location for the trash removal. Ms. Broughton pointed out the location and noted stated code requires trash to be inside the building. Mr. Gibbs asked how the management would decide ahead of time when a noise barrier would be necessary or not. Mr. Sarpa stated they are looking into a retractable wall to be mechanically raised and lowered. Mr. Gibbs wondered if continuous monitoring would allow the noise barrier to be raised on its own. Mr. Sarpa stated when an event is booked, they have a pretty good idea based on if the event is a band and what type of band. Mr. Sarpa stated segments of the wall could be rolled out and in place to be installed if necessary. Mr. Corey Enloe stated they are looking at lots of options for the wall. He also stated there are other factors to consider including the height and direction of the speakers. Mr. Sarpa stated technology will also allow the Sky to use their own equipment instead of the band or DJ bringing and controlling the sound equipment. Mr. McNellis stated he is still a bit fuzzy on the comparison of changes presented. Ms. Garrow stated the new FAR is 96,100 sf. Mr. McNellis then asked for the ratio at which Ms. Garrow replied it is 2.59:1 and code states 2.5:1. Mr. Sarpa stated the space lost was added back in the special event space (approximately 1,800 sf). Mr. Sarpa confirmed the special event space will be subgrade. Mr. Erspamer referred to p 18 of the packet and asked if APCHA has rules regarding the affordable housing units being vacant for more than 45 days. Ms. Garrow stated this is a standard APCHA regulation. APCHA will work with the Sky Hotel to ensure the units are not vacant more the 45 days. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Sarpa if the parking with the neighbors has been resolved at which Mr. Sarpa replied they are still in discussion with Mr. John Corcoran representing the Aspen Alps. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Engineering department took away on Spring St and if it would be a detriment. Mr. Sarpa stated they did not take away any parking on Spring St. In fact, they added spaces. The new building has been pulled to the east to allow for four parking spaces on Sky property. He stated the only spaces going away was the one space on Durant the Engineering department had deemed illegal. Mr. Erspamer asked what contributed to the 21% reduction in traffic on Spring St. Mr. Sarpa stated eliminating the constant need to turn around at the end of Spring St. Mr. Erspamer ask why the traffic study was done in September. Mr. McHale stated the traffic consultant accounted for peak times to determine four spaces identified on Spring St. Mr. Erspamer asked why the temporary walls could not be permanent. Mr. Sarpa stated they wanted to reduce the visual impact and they would not be needed most of the time. P25 W.B. Regular Meeting Plannin! & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. Mr. Jody Edwards, representing Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont, stated the noise study is very important and we would like to see the final by the time the application reaches City Council. He also requested one of the shadow study slides to be displayed and then asked if the new Sky building is depicted as three stories when it should be two stories. Mr. Sarpa stated it is two story. Mr. Erspamer then asked Mr. Edwards if anything had changed related the many suggestions noted in a previous meeting at which Mr. Edwards replied no. Mr. Bill Tomcich, president of Stay Aspen/Snowmass, stated he has worked in the Aspen area central reservation business since 1995. He has seen a lot of change in the lodging sector, but the Sky Hotel. It is an absolute prime property for a successful lodge. He feels they have done a masterful job of maintaining the site, given its size. He feels the design is impressive and well thought out. Most of the properties built in the 60s and 70s don't have historical significance. The architectural design for the new hotel will greatly enhance the experience of the guests and neighbors. He strongly supports the project. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Tomcich to confirm the date of the last official study regarding the lodging occupancy and number of pillows. Mr. Tomcich replied there are two different measures. The pillow counts are updated about every three years. There was done in 2009 and another in 2012. The occupancy studies are done every single month. The baseline of the occupancy figures was conducted in 2012. It wasn't until 2009 that they included a very detailed account of them. He stated his counting of the number of pillows as represented by Aspen central reservations became a futile project in 2006. This was originally done to calculate the number of shares of the properties within the organization. It was never a complete or exhaustive bed count. Ms. Linda Hayes is commenting from a professional and personal point of view. She has been visiting here for 25 years. She and her husband built a very environmentally friendly, at the time, house in Old Snowmass. She feels the house reflects the land and responds to the land. From a professional level as a freelance writer about lifestyles as well as architecture and design for local and national media, she feels the design addresses the impact on the land and community. She feels the project team has been responsive regarding to all concerned including Aspen as a community. She feels the design supports tradition and she supports it. Mr. R J Gallagher, part of the applicant team, wanted to submit the first resolution from ACRA Board of Directors showing support for the project. The resolution will be included in Exhibit E.7. Mr. Simon Chen, General Manager of the Little Nell, personally feels it is a great design. He travels six weeks a year to try to sell Aspen and he hears Aspen does not have modern accommodations. He feels the design of the Spring St entrance shows they thought about their neighbors. He strongly supports the project. Mr. Chris Klug, professional snowboarder, wanted to say has had the opportunity to travel the world as a snowboarder and has probably visited every ski resort in North America and many in South America, Europe and Asia. In regards to hotels in these other areas, the competition is tough. Other resorts are working very hard to lure our guests and be the next Aspen. He feels Aspen puts on many events to attract Gen X and Y and ecos. The challenge is to appeal the next generation and he feels this project will attract a younger demographic. His family is in the hotel business and many of the downtown, core properties are from the late 60s, early 70s era consisting of low ceilings, dark. He stated if you visit a new project like the Viceroy in Snowmass, you can see what higher ceilings and more light can do. He Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 thinks we need another project similar to the Limelight. He feels this location is key to our town and he feels the project strikes a good balance between our guests, visitors and locals. He supports the project. Mr. David Perry, Aspen Skiing Company, supports the redevelopment of the Sky Hotel. He feels it is a critical hotel in the community and it is very important our bed based does not decline and remains current and attractive to both national and international customers. As a neighboring property, he realizes there will be impacts, but welcomes a better looking building. He has used the same sound engineer and trusts their work. He feels the applicant has taken adequate measures to mitigate the impacts of the building. As a building, project and use, the Aspen Skiing Company support the project. Mr. Bob Lipsitz, Chief Engineer of the Sky Hotel, stated it has been a challenge to the keep the current building running. He understands the industry standards for hospitality. The Sky today does not meet any of the standards for Aspen, ADA or industry hospitality standards. The owners have done a good job as keeping it at a Kimpton hotel, but just this week he heard a guest state the Sky is not keeping up as a Kimpton hotel. There is no way the current facility can be brought up to meet those standards. He feels the ownership and design team has made huge efforts to minimize impacts to neighbors and make it look like it belongs in the neighborhood. Mr. Erspamer asked for board clarifications and comments regarding public comment. There were none. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer asked for staff rebuttal. There were none. Mr. Erspamer asked for applicant rebuttal. Mr. Sarpa stated they would be happy to provide a full sound study before appearing to City Council. Mr. Erspamer opened for commissioners comments. Mr. Erspamer feels it is a good application. He has some exceptions which will be worked through on the amendment process. He feels the rooftop deck is the most troubling issue. It is a public amenity space. What if the passive part of the deck could be reduced and replace it with the active part of the deck. He wants to try to avoid potential noise problems by placing the active side closer to the Little Nell. He would like to see an amendment that covers the sound from the deck. Mr. Erspamer also questions the height. According to code, it should be 40 ft. The elevator overrun will be pretty big. He feels the shadows have been solved. Mr. Erspamer reviewed the criteria for judgment by the board. Mr. Erspamer stated he is very concerned about fractionals because the code states fractionals are considered a lodge, but you can't make a reservations until 30 days ahead of time. He feels the code takes away from being a lodge unit. He would prefer there were no fractionals, but it won't change his decision. He feels they have met the GMQS requirements. He asked the other board members to comment on the seven criteria. 10 P27 W.B. W.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Walterscheid doesn't think the applicant should have to redesign the deck. There is a decibel regulation to meet and they have to meet it. How they determine to do that is up to them. There are numerous automated solutions, including monitors on adjacent buildings, which may be utilized. He feels it is a great application and he likes the facade. He is understanding of the elevator overrun. He doesn't have a problem with the height. He does not have any exceptions. Mr. Goode seconds Mr. Waltersheid's position. He loves the rooftop deck and thinks it's a shame it is now smaller. He loves the concept of the building and has no issues. Mr. Erspamer asked the board members about a recommendation to council about sound and audio. Mr. Walterscheid stated the applicant will complete the noise study and feels there are many ways to control the noise and he does not think it is necessary to control how they mitigate noise. Ultimately, if they are breaking the noise ordinance, there will be another issues and they could be shut down. It's not in their best interest to allow that to occur. He feels they have gone out of their way to approach surrounding neighbors. He understands the impact to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont and unfortunately they are as close to the mountain as the hotel and that is the value in their property. He understands they will have some loss of views but ultimately the neighboring building will be much better. Mr. Erspamer asked the board members about recommending a time schedule for the rooftop deck. Mr. Walterscheid doesn't think we should legislate the management of the hotel. It is a public amenity space. There is nothing in the code to regulate it. Mr. Erspamer noted the deck on the Dancing Bear, but Mr. Walterscheid did not believe it is open to the public. Mr. Gibbs asked staff if the resolution has a statement regarding the vacated rights-of-way. This is something that is of concern to him and he would like to see something in the resolution to ensure it is dealt with. The P&Z approval is assumes City Council will modify the vacated rights-of-way. Ms. Garrow stated it is not included in the resolution but it can be added. Mr. Gibbs confirmed that P&Z would see this project again for final once the conceptual approval has been completed. Mr. Gibbs thinks it is a great building and feels it is very needed. His greatest concern are the impacts to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. He feels those residents will take the brunt of the impacts. He feels the project team has done a wonderful job thinking about how to minimize the effects. He feels the Sky has an opportunity to be a leader with this project. He thinks it's an opportunity to shine and show how a project can be very compatible in operation with the community. He wishes there were no impacts to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont but he doesn't see how he can vote against the project given they have responded admirably to their concerns of the residents and the commission. He wished all applicants did the same. He thinks a great project. Mr. Gibbs wondered if the alley could be snowmelted. He knows this is not popular in Aspen, but considering how narrow the alley is and the lack of light. He feels it would improve the access to the alley. Mr. McNellis gave kudos to the design team. He feels they have done a great job addressing concerns. He has the same concerns as Mr. Gibbs. He felt the concessions he mentioned in the previous meeting were not supported by the residents of the Chateaus so is backing off from them. In regard to the height, he feels this is a highly sought after urban area and high density should be expected. He appreciates the concessions by bringing back the top floor. He feels the 45 ft is appropriate and iconic r 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 for the building's location at the end of a street. He feels the building blends well with mountain. He is happy solar access is still available to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. Views are important, but not nearly as important as solar access. He is also happy the traffic will be improved and should improve the quality of life for the chateaus. Mr. Erspamer is still concerned about the rooftop deck. He is concerned about the human element. He would like to see a timeline. He feels the deck should be closed at 10 PM. Mr. Goode stated there are no other rooftop decks open to the public. Mr. Erspamer stated he wants the parking issue with the Aspen Alps resolved prior to or at City Council. Mr. Gibbs stated parking issues are not typically resolved until the final review. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the hearing until 7:15 PM, seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Erspamer asked for a motion. Mr. Gibbs moved to approve resolution 14-2014 approving the applicants request for redevelopment at 709 E Durant with the changes noted by Ms. Garrow. The motion was seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include a timeline on the rooftop deck at 10 PM. Mr. Gibbs rejected the proposal. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include the applicant snowmelts Dean Alley. Mr. Walterscheid did not know if the board has purview and rejected the proposal. Mr. Gibbs stated he would agree if it was a recommendation to City Council to inquire with the applicant. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include a recommendation for City Council and the applicant to consider snowmelting Dean Alley. Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Walterscheid agreed to the proposal. Mr. Erspamer requested a roll call vote. Goode, yes; McNellis, yes; Gibbs, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion carries with a four to one (4-1) vote. Mr. Erspamer adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager P29 12 W.B. W.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 U Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Ryan Walterscheid. Brian McNellis arrived at 4:35 PM. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer wanted to congratulate Chris Bendon and the Community Development Department on a recent award. Ms. Phelan stated the department had received an award from a state chapter for planners for the Affordable Housing Credit Program. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there are only three members availabl has requested to not be heard on the 18th. They woul be rescheduled for December 2"d. The November 1 continued until December 2"d confirm attendance. For those not abl PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES - Octo The board members were the Decemb eting. DEC L TION OF There wer eclarations. Other Busine 04 Mr. Erspamer opened Ms. Garrow stated at the put 18th meeting. The applicant iembers. The meeting will Gibbs and She wanted to inutes, so the approval will be delayed until - Sky Hotel - Potential Public Hearing potential hearing for the Sky Hotel. earing held on October 21St when P&Z voted 4-1 to approve the Sky Hotel project, there were some shadow studies shown. These studies had some incorrect information w it relates to the elevation of the alley and the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. It appears the Sky Hotel east wing was a three story when in fact it is a two story building. Staff wanted to bring this back and give the board the option of reconsidering the project based on the additional information. Ms. Garrow then displayed the corrected shadow study alongside of the incorrect versions previously shown to P&Z. The studies represent the shadows at 9 AM, Noon and approximately 3 PM for different dates throughout the year including June, September, December and February. From Staff's perspective, they don't feel the correct study changes what was discussed. But out of abundance of caution, Staff wanted to bring this to P&Z. Ms. Garrow stated if P&Z wants to reconsider the project, someone who was in the P30 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 majority needs to make the motion. The majority members in the vote were Mr. Walterscheid, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. McNellis. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was another question regarding two vs. three story. Ms. Garrow stated the slope on the site and the alley was incorrect. The alley elevation is actually a few ft higher than what was previously modeled. Based on the slides shown the Sky Hotel does not change, but the alley moves up. Mr. Gibbs asked the error was made on both the existing and new Sky Hotels previously shown at which Ms. Garrow confirmed. The elevation of the hotel was correct. Mr. Erspamer asked the majority members if they wanted to ma which no one made a motion. Public Hearing - 506 / 530 E Main / Rezoning Hearing Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing for 506 / 530 E M Ms. Phelan asked if Staff could have 2 notice was provided but Staff does not the City has traditionally allowed the app the representation it has been done proper stated they did have the mailing. Mr. Barker reviewed t'fl Mr. Barker realized the P&Z Board. Mr ker and rezon' are zo ublic zo tr zoned mercial Core vacate a p of the right - the merged ty as all pub historic bounda he courth confirm p idavit at 4 hours r. Tr Wd P&Z n to continue the hearing at ajor Subdivision :ice. Mr. True askeif Staff believes r. Barker confirmed. Mr. True stated vide proper documentation on move forward. Ms. Phelan bNee Count bard of County Commissioners. fa om the packet. He provided hard copies to guapplication including the major subdivision Ouse and jail buildings (506 E Main) which oPlaza building (530 E Main St) which is ubdivi on requests to merge the properties together and behind the Plaza building. The applicant wants to rezone dditional request brought up by Staff to define the Mr. Barker stated City cil wi he final review authority on of the decisions. P&Z will provide recommendations to Cit In regards to the subdivision reviews, the application meets all the criteria in the land use code. The Utilities department recommends an additional requirement for the easements to be established or relocated to a line of existing utilities. Some of the utility lines do not line up with the current easement which used to be the alley way. In regards to the right-of-way, the entire alley behind the Plaza building was intended to be vacated in 1975 but never happened. This is reflected on a plat from 1982 and discovered when the applicant had a survey completed for the application. Staff is recommending a complete vacation for the alley way to memorialize the vacation. N P31 W.C. W.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 For the rezoning, the property containing the Plaza building is zoned as Commercial Core. When the properties merge, the applicant would like all the properties to be zoned as Public. This property meets all the review criteria for rezoning as well. In regards to the designation, 506 E Main St was designated in 1981, intended for the courthouse building. At one point in time the courthouse and jail were on separate properties, but have been merged so there is one address for both properties. Staff is also looking for clarity regarding what land specifically is included in the historic designation. Potentially if a third address is being added, it has become very unclear. Staff is recommending the four Townsite lots t e courthouse occupies (Memo p 61) be designated as the historic boundary. One additional item the applicant has requested that is n eliminate the 20 ft access easement on the east side of tI Erspamer asked who had the easement and Ms. Phe The applicant stated there is no clear beneficiary. Ms. Tygre asked if P&Z can act on the last item disc stated it is not a noticing item. Mr. True did not think i application. Mr. Barker stated it was amendation utility easements. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Barker for the ver, of the utility easement. M n stated w 1 will be required to sho ming on appropriate utility ea is bei ied as the resolution. the memo is the request to Zteneficiary ancis property line. Mr. of the easemen t. not part o ince it is anti recommenda emo. Ms. Phelan o the o align the olution regarding the alignment s, a new Subdivision plat s department requested the identified this in Section 1 of Mr. Erspam clarit esses. Barker stated the issue is clarifying the boundar ouse al finance designation listed only an address, ourthouse probably the only building on the property. not a I escription. ime, Since th ere has been a er o e res n. Mr. Erspamer asked about ution language for the vacation of the access easement. Mr. Barker stated a third paragraph coul a added under Section 1 of the resolution. Essentially, a second condition could be added which state the 20 ft access easement on the east side of the property is eliminated. Mr. UZ Erspamer and Mr. Gibbs responded this would be an appropriate addition. ated. T roperties and now possibly a third property. This would re is ear designation of the property. Ms. Phelan stated this i another clean s torical ignation includes both an address and legal description tear a legal was defined. This is covered in Section 3, second identify thr of the property. I paragraph of the ress on one ue. Typically case, it is n Ms. Tygre asked if the revised plat should be included in the resolution as a requirement. Mr. Barker stated it will be designated appropriately in the ordinance as a requirement when the application is brought before City Council for final approval. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. P32 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates is representing the applicant. He was joined by Jodi Smith and Dave Detwiler of Pitkin County. Mr. Rawley stated the initial purpose of the application has expanded as discussed previously by Staff. The County wishes to merge the Plaza building with the Courthouse parcel, vacate the alley way and rezone both parcels to Public. Mr. Rawley then displayed a map of the area to review the location of the buildings, lots, and alley way. He stated the application requests will enable efficient development if it were to occur in the future. It optimizes the use of the land and provides certain operational efficiejacies to the County. The alley behind the courthouse was vacated in 1975. A small way is not connected to any streets and not used as a thorn occupied and maintained by the County Mr. Rawley stated the rezoning would put all the I Mr. Rawley and Mr. Detwiler then displayed and de Detwiler stated the easement appears on different m current easement. Regarding the historic designation of the designation, it included Veterans Park and The change would be to d resource from the cour Mr. Erspamer opened Mr. Erspam he (HPC). with t e. Ms. Smith . Preserva fficer. Mr. Erspamer Mr. Erspamer ask it part of the parcel who owns V he park is of it was not included. This alley is a piece of land that has been easement. Mr. Uide of the ed when it received the has stated it is not necessary. ch the park as a historic of the Historic Preservation Commission ecause there is no development associated ions with Amy Simon, the City's Historic ns Par . oth Ms. Smith and Mr. Detwiler replied Pitkin County. of the project. Mr. Rawley stated it is part of the project because stated there is no development being considered. Mr. McNellis asked what tis use is for the park. Mr. Rawley stated is not aware of the historic use. Mr. McNellis asked if the were any buildings there in the past. Mr. Rawley stated he could not answer. Mr. Detwiler stated they met with both the City and County HPC to let them know what they were talking about including the ongoing discussion regarding windows in the courthouse. He stated everyone is up to speed and had no issues. He stated courthouse needed to be designated and it was a question if the park was historic or not. Mr. McNellis asked if there was a referral provided by Amy Simon regarding this application. Mr. Barker stated a referral was not included, but they did refer with Ms. Simon on the project. Mr. Erspamer asked if anything was written at which Mr. Barker replied no. It was discussion only. Mr. McNellis he was not satisfied and he considers it is all hearsay. 4 P33 W.C. W.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Detwiler stated what is being discussed at the meeting doesn't have any effect on the individual buildings. He stated if the development moves forward, it still has to be reviewed. Mr. Rawley stated there just needs to be a way to describe the designation. Mr. McNellis stated this will disjoint the designation associated with the park from the historic resource the applicant is defining as the courthouse. Mr. Detwiler stated they are not disjointing it, there wasn't ever a historic designation to the park. Mr. Rawley stated when the historic designation took place, they needed an address to attach it to and the address includes Veterans Park but the intention of the historic designation did not include the park. His understanding is they were just looking for a description. Mr. McNellis stated he does not have any documentation r intentions for the designation. He understands the courtho have any background associated with the park next to the historic designations of landscapes. He does not kno Rawley stated HPC has purview. Ms. Tygre noted what Mr. McNellis stated the oppi stated he does not have the background to say it is resource because he does not know w ppene he is being told at the meeting. He wan o understands what Mr. McNellis is reques believes Mr. McNellis has a valid question. Mr. Gibbs asked if the Commissioners weig o original application. Th asked if this is a decision c is just incor %Sta County decisi t Coun commiss s. Mr. Erspamer d Mr. Erspamer asked applicant. There were for public were Mr. Erspamer asked the appl e historic designation and the be designated but he does not e will advocate for certain is particular parcel. Mr. applicant is osing. Mr. McNellis e the landsc om the historic nation took place. he has is what r. Walterscheid stated he s it four and not six. Ms. Tygre wm"Iftlto k w if the County ted th ment were not part of the [aff to Ms. Smith and Mr. Detwiler. Mr. Gibbs s. Smith stated the easement already exists, it would have to grant the easement on to sign the plat. Mr. Gibbs feels this is not a ear the level of involvement by the were none. He then closed public comment. staff rebuttal or clarification regarding evidence presented by the for rebuttal to which there was none. Mr. opened for deliberation by the commissioners. Mr. McNellis stated he can support the resolution, but would like to see more information on the designation of the courthouse. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. McNellis if he wanted to add something to the resolution to make City Council look at it. Mr. McNellis stated he would prefer to recommend continuation with the P&Z until there is more information available regarding the historic resource. P34 61 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Ms. Tygre stated she agrees with Mr. McNellis. She believes everyone is in favor of this in concept, but there are certain details that have not been addressed as thoroughly as required of a private developer. She does not want it to go forward based on those circumstances. Mr. Erspamer feels they can amend the resolution to include a statement for Council to resolve the issue first. Ms. Tygre feels Mr. McNellis would like to state an opinion on the issue but is unable to without the additional information. Mr. McNellis agreed. Ms. Tygre stated would also like to make a comment as well regarding if the park should or should not be included. Mr. Walt rscheid stated he understands Mr. McNellis's point. Mr. Gibbs doesn't feel P&Z has purview over historic de: make. He does feel it would be appropriate to put this a that Council clarify the process and status of the park Mr. McNellis agreed with Mr. Gibbs, but is unco property and believes there should be a referral frc surprised there was nothing from Ms. Simon includ Mr. Erspamer agreed with Mr. Gibbs b can be reviewed when development occ that point to determine what is historic. It should make the decision. Mr. McNellis stated h Id part of the historic desi they are being asked to dis Ms.Phe evifrom k10 t C Officer. It can be to to show the Mr. McNellis Wliftllike the oppdftity to is not sure there is a decision to esolution as a recommendation is designation. e without having th Simon or HPC. Mr and of the r stated he was in the resolution and the designation Ld be late in the day to wait until not historic and feels Council stating if the park was or was not from the historic resource since b ground documentation on the designation arab b7 have morphed over time and perhaps plats ration prior to the jail property being merged. w, but he understands the limitation of the P&Z board. Mr. True agrees with'qqWhelan'§Mgestion to move forward. Mr. Walterscheid suggeste sk Council to review the historic designation of lots O and P along with lots K, L, M and N. Mr. Gi s stated it could be added to section 3 of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer added that it should state "shall be clarified by Council". Ms. Tygre suggested adding Veterans Park to make it clearer. Mr. True stated in a meeting with Ms. Simon and Mr. Barker, it was pretty clear the park was never designated and there was no evidence to support it was designated. He does feel it would be appropriate for P&Z to request this to be confirmed. X P35 W.C. W.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis discussed the amendment to the resolution should state "The historic status of lots O & P (Veterans Park) is unclear and shall be documented by Staff and reviewed by Council prior to approval." Mr. Walterscheid asked how a historic lot split is approved. Mr. True stated it would go through HPC, then recommend to be approved by City Council. Mr. Walterscheid stated it seems P&Z is doing the opposite. Ms. Tygre moves to approve Resolution #16-2014 with the addition of the 20 ft access easement elimination under Section 1 and the additional recommendation preously discussed under Section 3. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes. The motion passes with a 5-0 vote. 1 The meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager P36 alterscheid, yes, Mr. Erspamer, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Base Lodge 1— 730 East Cooper Street —Commercial Design Review, Variances, Growth Management Review, Planned Development — Project Review, Subdivision Review MF.F.TINC DATE• T)PrPmhPr 7 ?011 APPLICANT: 730 S. Cooper LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: 730 East Cooper Street, corner of Cooper Street and Original Street across from City Market. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial Lodge (CL) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to redevelop the existing mixed use building into a lodge building with commercial use on the ground floor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. SITE VISIT: A site visit is scheduled for December 2" d at noon, the day of the public hearing. Please meet at the corner of Cooper and Original Streets. Photo: Current image of mixed use building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant has requested to consolidate all conceptual and growth management reviews at City Council. The following land use approvals are requested: • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 1 of 9 P37 VI.A. VI.A. A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an increase in overall floor area, free market residential floor area, lodge floor area, setbacks. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, affordable housing, and commercial development and allotments. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) BACKGROUND: The Buckhorn property was built in the 1960s as a mixed use building with commercial space on the ground floor and lodge units on the upper floor. Some commercial and lodge associated space existed in the basement as well. At the time, the property was zoned C-1. In the 1970s and 1980s, as the City went through various efforts to properly zone and locate tourist accommodations, the Buckhorn was first zoned Office and then Commercial Lodge (CL). The CL rezoning included a condition that limited the property to a 1:1 floor area ratio. In 2009, the property owner received approval through Ordinance #2, from the City to lift the floor area ratio limit, replacing it with a requirement that any future development be processed as a Planned Unit Development. All dimensional requirements for this site, including floor area, height, and parking, are now approved by City Council on a site specific basis. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and to construct a three story above grade building with a roof deck and a basement. The project is a mix of lodge and commercial uses as described below. Basement: associated lodge use, back of house Ground level: commercial (retail/restaurant), lodge lobby Second floor: 22 lodge rooms Third floor: 22 lodge rooms Rooftop: publically accessible deck, bathrooms, mechanical S 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 2 of 9 VI.A. The following dimensions are proposed (blue highlight indicates a variance request): TABLE 1' Lod e: The applicant proposes 44 lodge units with an average room size of 173 square feet. The majority of the units are rooms with a single bed (36 singles). There are 4 rooms with 2 twin beds each and 4 dormitory style rooms with 4 beds each. Commercial: The applicant proposes 2 commercial spaces on the ground floor to house retail and restaurant uses. 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 3 of 9 P39 Requirement in CL Proposed front yard (Cooper 0' 0' St.) side yard (Original 0' 0' St.) side yard (west) 0' S' rear (alley) 0' 0' 36'- 40' through Commercial Design Review 37'6" top of third floor parapet maximum height 39' allowed for bathrooms 43' top of bathroom 50' allowed for stair and elevator 43' top of stairs and 48'6" top of elevator public amenity 21% or 1,465 sf 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method minimum off-street 25.6 parking spaces cumulative floor 2.5:1 (17,317.5 sf) 2.46:1(17,032 sf) area lodge floor area 2:1 (13,854 sf) 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit n/a about 173 size lodge net livable n/a 7,612 sf area Commercial floor 1:1 (6,927 sf) 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) area Commercial net n/a 3,351 sf leasable area Lod e: The applicant proposes 44 lodge units with an average room size of 173 square feet. The majority of the units are rooms with a single bed (36 singles). There are 4 rooms with 2 twin beds each and 4 dormitory style rooms with 4 beds each. Commercial: The applicant proposes 2 commercial spaces on the ground floor to house retail and restaurant uses. 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 3 of 9 P39 VI.A. Parking: The property currently includes 6 parking spaces. Based on the existing development of 3,751 sf of commercial space and 3 lodge units, the code required parking is 5.2 spaces'. There is no existing deficit of parking. The project is required to provide 25.6 parking spaces2. The applicant proposes 0 onsite parking spaces; however the applicant is working with the City to possibly enter into a lease agreement to use parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking garage. The lodge proposes a valet service to ensure that the parking garage is used. The ability to use the Rio Grande parking garage is decided by City Council. In addition to the parking garage spaces, the applicant proposes the following: • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 2. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. Affordable Housing: As described in Exhibit C, the applicant requests approval to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/bedroom for the lodge portion of the project as opposed to the Lodge generation rate of 0.6 FTEs/bedroom based on the amenities and room sizes proposed. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (1.97 FTEs or 0.9 FTEs, respectively). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing requirement. The project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 173 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. The proposed commercial space is less than the existing space, so there is no mitigation required for the commercial component. The applicant requests an employee generation review pursuant the Land Use Code to apply the Lodge Preservation employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/ bedroom rather than a rate of 0.6 FTEs/ bedroom that is applied in the lodge Zone Districts (L, CL, SKI, etc). The lodges in the lodge zone districts are located at the base of the mountain: Sky Hotel, Little Nell, St. Regis, and the Grand Hyatt to name a few. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the generation rate. Hotels with a Lodge Preservation Overlay are smaller lodges that are located along Main Street and in the residential neighborhoods. The Lodge Preservation zone district has a much lower employee mitigation rate of 0.3 FTE/bedroom. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. There are no review criteria specific to waiving the affordable housing requirement. As part of the review process City Council is asked to determine whether a waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate. 1 1.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.7 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space). = 5.2 spaces required. 2 22 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.5 spaces for the commercial use (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space) = 25.5 spaces required. 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 4 of 9 'M Impact Fee Waivers: Section 26.710.100 of the Land Use Code states "As an economic development incentive, a lodging development may apply for a waiver of the impact fees." A wavier of impact fees are requested as part of the site specific approval. City Council is the final review authority for the requested waivers. Impact fees are assessed based on additional new square footage and net leasable area. The existing commercial size decreases in the proposal, so there are no fees associated with the commercial component. The requested impact fees are as follows: Parks Development Fee: Lodge - (8, 794.7 sf proposed - 2,238 sf existing = 6,556.7 sf new) 6,556.7 * $5.45 = $35,734.02 Commercial — (3,351 sf proposed — 3,751 sf existing = no increase) TDM/Air Quality Fee: Lodge — 6,556.7 * $0.61 = $3,999.59 Commercial — no increase STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) — PROJECT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A) The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. Context and Design: The applicant proposes a three story building with a roof deck. The proposed architecture uses exposed steel and glass with concrete accents to reference Aspen's mining past. In terms of the design objectives for this area of Aspen, Staff finds that the project is successfully addressing the transition between the Commercial Core and residential neighborhoods, is designed at a pedestrian scale, activates the streetscape, and provides beneficial outdoor areas. Three quarters of the Cooper Avenue blockface where Base 1 Lodge is proposed to be constructed is occupied by the Bell Mountain Condominiums. These condominiums replaced a circa 1950s lodge. While the condominiums have a front setback of about 25', the sideyards are only approximately 5'. The complex includes two primary building modules which are each 64' wide; identical to the proposed width of Base 1. The highest ridgelines of the complex are approximately 31'. 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 5 of 9 P41 VI.A. VI.A. I Figure 1: Bell Mountain Condominiums To the rear of Base 1 is the Benedict Commons affordable housing development. Front and side setbacks on this property range from 6-10'. The tallest ridgeline faces Hyman Avenue, and is 36' above grade. The Original Street fagade is 82' in length, whereas Base 1 is proposed to be 100' in length on the Original Street fagade. Continuing down this streetfrontage is Figure 2: Benedict Commons the former Aspen Athetic club, which has a size and bulk similar to Base 1 and is up to 35' tall. i -I =1 P42 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 6 of 9 E: Figure 3: Aspen Athletic Club To the east of the project site is a mix of former small lodges converted to condominiums, many of which are vacation rental properties. 802 E. Cooper, directly adjacent to the project site, is a recently remodeled multi -family structure with an overall height of 32'. Figure 4: 802 East Cooper Street Staff finds that Base 1 Lodge, with a proposed height of 37'6" to the primary parapet, is consistent with surrounding development. While some nearby properties have a street -facing 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 7 of 9 P43 VI.A. VLA. yard or greenspace, this is not a dominant characteristic of the neighborhood. Numerous adjacent sites have tall fences, street facing parking areas, garden level units, windowless facades, or other conditions that affect the relationship of the building to street. Base 1 Lodge overcomes many of these issues, which are present in the Buckhorn Lodge building that is being replaced. Variations: Through the PD process the applicant requests to vary the parking requirement and the maximum height for the bathrooms on the roof. The majority of the project meets the underlying zone district. The bathrooms are more than 20 ft. setback from the building edge on all street facing facades and the alley. The subject lot is just under 7,000 sf in size, which is too small to support a parking garage (considering ramp requirements) and surface parking would only amount to a few spaces (considering trash/utility requirements). Staff is supportive of the requested height variation for the bathrooms and the parking requirement with the condition that parking be provided in the Rio Grande parking garage with valet service or some similar parking situation. The size of the trash/utility area is included as a condition of approval for Detailed Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately City Council are asked to weigh the importance of small lodge rooms and a lodge project that does not contain any free market residential use against the request for affordable housing and parking waivers, a slight height increase for bathrooms, and a waiver of impact fees. A policy of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to: "replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points. " One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "Implement an incentive program for the short-term bed base." This goal came about partly because of the recognition that Aspen has lost a significant amount of our bed base since the 1990s. Between 1995 and 2006, the city lost 27% of the bed base — including both traditional hotels as well as condominium rentals. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT B) Staff finds that the intent of the Conceptual Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines are met with conditions. Staff has included the following as conditions of approval for Detailed Review: • A public access easement is provided for the rooftop public amenity space. • Trash/utility area is approved by Environmental Health and the Utility Department. • Vestibules are added to the commercial spaces. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (EXHIBIT C) See discussion on previous page. City Council is asked to conduct Growth Management as part of the consolidated review. Staff is supportive of the request to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay employee generation table to determine employee generation. There are no specific review criteria in the Code to evaluate a waiver of affordable housing mitigation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission support a recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed project with conditions listed in the draft resolution. ■.. 730 E. Cooper Street —Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 8 of 9 PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2014 recommending Planned Development- Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Growth Management Review approvals to City Council. Attachments: Exhibit A — Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria Exhibit B — Staff Findings, Commercial Design Standard Review Criteria Exhibit C — Staff Findings, Growth Management Review Criteria Exhibit D — Development Review Committee Comments Exhibit E — Application 730 E. Cooper Street — Base 1 Staff Memo 12/2/14 Page 9 of 9 P45 VLA. VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BASE 1 LODGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 730 E COOPER STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-27-004 AND 2737-182-27-904 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Base 1 Lodge (the Application) from 730 E. Cooper LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development — Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Growth Management Review — Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review —Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review — Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — October 20, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Base 1 Lodge proposes: ■ 44 lodge units and 44 bedrooms in 7,612 square feet of net livable area. ■ 3,351 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable space; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval with the condition that affordable housing be mitigated onsite by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 1 of 9 after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, continued from November 18, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution _, Series of 2014, by a vote recommending City Council approve the Base 1 Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant — Project Review approval, Growth Management approvals, and Conceptual Commercial Design approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan for Base 1 Lodge, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Exhibit A describes the dimensional requirements. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review and Planned Development — Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Section 3: Growth Management Allotments 3.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing development at 730 E. Cooper St. (aka Buckhorn Lodge), the Applicant is entitled to the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 a. A total of 4 lodging bedrooms, 8 lodge pillows, is credited toward the Project's lodge GMQS allotment request. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 2 of 9 P47 VI.A. VI.A. b. A commercial reconstruction credit of 3,751 square feet of net leasable area is credited toward the Project's 3,351 square feet of commercial net leasable area. 3.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are recommended to be granted to the Base 1 Lodge: a. 40 lodging bedrooms = 80 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 44 lodging bedrooms or 88 pillows. Section 4: Affordable Housing The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is established for Base 1 Lodge. Section 5: Planned Development — Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development — Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application's Planned Development — Detail Review: a. A trash utility area meeting City standards or as otherwise approved by the Utility and Environmental Health Departments. b. A signage plan. c. Vestibules for both commercial spaces. d. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to Section 26.575.150. e. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. f. A draft Construction Management Plan. g. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. h. An updated and final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. i. A plan for deliveries, pursuant to Section 26.412. Section 6: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Planned Development — Detail Review approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 3 of 9 VI.A. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 7: Engineering Department The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 7.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards with building permit submittal. 7.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: The corner of Cooper Ave and Original St could be a potential location for a pedestrian bulb out. This option should be considered given the long crossing distances and level of pedestrian traffic in this area. All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. Sidewalks within the Right of Way may not be altered to accommodate hotel entrances. Directional ADA ramps are required on the corner of Cooper Ave. and Original St. 7.3 Encroachments: The building overhang into the ROW must have a minimum height of 7'. Include information on how the overhang is supported. Buildings shall not overhang into the alley. Locate all utility pedestals and electric transformers to within the property boundary. 7.4 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 7.5 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 7.6 Survey Requirement: Pothole and provide depth to utilities on the survey as part of building permit submittal. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 4 of 9 VI.A. Section 9: Parks Department Tree removal permits for the cottonwood tree in front of the property is required prior to Detailed Review application submittal. Tree removal permits for the remaining trees may be submitted as part of the building permit submittal. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Any plantings on the roof shall not qualify as mitigation. The applicant shall explore potential sites around the property to allow full maturation of trees. This shall be included as part of the PD Detail Review. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. P50 Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 5 of 9 Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A "Line Replacement Request" and a "Collection System Agreement are required for these projects. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The applicant's engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior to final design. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Section 11: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement. The trash enclosures shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in Title 12 unless varied through Special Review. Prior to Detail PD Review, the dimensions of the trash area and an accessible route to the trash area shall receive approval by the Environmental Health Department. Section 12: Transportation Department A specific narrative associated with the Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the Detailed PD Review application. The TDM and MMOLS measures described below shall be implemented. Additional TDM and MMOLS measures may be required during Detailed Review. • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 2 Lodge. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 6 of 9 P51 VI.A. VI.A. Section 13: Parking Department Two parking spaces on Original Street in front of the lodge shall be signed loading zones. The applicant shall secure parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking garage and offer valet service, or another similar parking situation to provide off- site parking spaces for the lodge. Section 14: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility and transformer placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Transformer location shall be included in the Detailed Review application. Section 15: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code unless otherwise varied through Detailed Review. Section 16: Public Amenity Spaces The Applicant has committed to providing a ground level courtyard and roof top public amenity spaces. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators. The rooftop space shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls/windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space. The ground level courtyard may be enclosed with a roof and walls through an administrative amendment. Section 17: Building Department The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit. Section 18• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 19• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20• P52 Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 7 of 9 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _st day of December, 2014. [signatures on following page] Approved as to form: Approved as to content: James R True, City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: Cindy Klob, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 8 of 9 P53 VI.A. VI.A. Exhibit A — Approved Dimensional Requirements P54 Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 9 of 9 Approved Dimensions front yard (Cooper 0' St.) side yard (Original 0 St.) side yard (west) 5' rear (alley) 0' 37'6" top of third floor parapet maximum height 43' top of bathrooms 43' top of stairs and 48'6" top of elevator public amenity 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop minimum off-street 0 parking spaces cumulative floor 2.46:1(17,032 sf) area lodge floor area 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit about 173 size lodge net livable 7,612 sf area Commercial floor 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) area Commercial net 3,351 sf leasable area Number of lodge 44 units P54 Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. , Series 2014 Page 9 of 9 VLA. Exhibit A — Planned Development (PD) Review 26.445.010. Purpose. The purpose of Planned Development review is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. F. Promotes safe and convenient transit, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and circulation. G. Allows the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices that warrant variations from the standard permitted zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 1 of 7 P55 VI.A. areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: 730 East Cooper Street is already developed with a two story above grade building and subgrade level. All applicable requirements described in the Development Review Committee comments are included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Findings: The site is currently developed as a mixed use building with a large parking area. The applicant proposes to remove curb cuts and provide street trees in the right of way. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: A large cottonwood is located in the right of way along Cooper Street. The Parks Department has indicated that the tree may not be granted a removal permit. A tree removal permit has been submitted and is being process by the Parks Department. Staff finds this criterion is met with the condition that the tree issue is resolved by the Parks Department or City Council. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The building is oriented toward the street to reflect the pattern of development along Cooper Street and Original Street. The parcel is accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are below: P56 Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 2 of 7 VLA. Table 1: Proposed Dimensions (Blue indicates variation request) A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Finding: The community will gain a new lodge with rooms averaging 173 sf in size. The small room sizes fill a gap in the lodging bed base. Diverse lodging has been at the forefront of community discussion for the past few years and is included in the Aspen Area Community Plan as a policy: "replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points. " Staff finds this criterion is met. Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 3 of 7 P57 Requirement in CL Proposed front yard (Cooper 0' 0' St.) side yard (Original 0' 0' St.) side yard (west) 0' S' rear (alley) 0' 0' 36'- 40' through Commercial Design Review 37'6" top of third floor parapet maximum height 39' allowed for bathrooms 43' top of bathrooms 50' allowed for stair and elevator 43' top of stairs and 48'6" top of elevator public amenity 21% or 1,465 sf 65% or 4,503 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method trash access area 20'w x15'd x 10'h 7'8"w x 18'3" d x 10'h *subject to approval by Environmental Health minimum off-street 25.6 parking spaces cumulative floor 2.5:1 (17,317.5 sf) 2.46:1(17,032 sf) area lodge floor area 2:1 (13,854 sf) 1.58:1 (10,930 sf) average lodge unit n/a about 173 size lodge net livable n/a 7,612 sf area Commercial floor 1:1 (6,927 sf) 0.52:1 (3,574 sf) area Commercial net n/a 3,351 sf leasable area A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Finding: The community will gain a new lodge with rooms averaging 173 sf in size. The small room sizes fill a gap in the lodging bed base. Diverse lodging has been at the forefront of community discussion for the past few years and is included in the Aspen Area Community Plan as a policy: "replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points. " Staff finds this criterion is met. Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 3 of 7 P57 VI.A. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensions are indicative of a lodge building with retail/restaurant on the first floor. The applicant proposes a lodge with small rooms to meet a demand for this size and style of lodging in Aspen. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Finding: The proposed project requests a height variation for bathrooms on the roof and a waiver of the parking requirement. The neighborhood is a mix of uses — City Market is located directly across Cooper Street. Multifamily residential townhomes are located to the west and across Original Street is a mix of residential uses. Moving toward the east (independence pass) the neighborhood become mostly residential and moving toward the west (gondola) the neighborhood is commercial and mixed use. An affordable housing complex is located across the alley. A block away is the Art Museum and the Aspen Athletic Club — both large boxy buildings. The neighborhood context is varied which supports a range of building styles, development patterns and dimensions on the property. Furthermore, there are a mix of zone districts in the immediate vicinity that have different dimensional requirements and permitted uses. A zone district map is below. Figure 1: Zone District Map. Star indicated subject parcel which is zoned Commercial Lodge (CL). %W 4 Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 4 of 7 VI.A. The project complies with the maximum height limits allowed in the CL Zone District with the exception of the rooftop bathrooms, which are about 4 ft. over the allowable height. The bathrooms are centrally located and have setbacks of at least 20 ft. on the two street facing facades and the alley. Staff is supportive of the height increase for the bathrooms considering the generous setbacks and the value of the proposed publically accessible rooftop deck. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Finding: The property currently provides 6 parking spaces. Based on the existing development of 3,751 sf of commercial space and 3 lodge units, the code required parking is 5.2 spaces'. There is no existing deficit of parking. The project is required to provide 25.6 parking z spaces . The applicant proposes 0 onsite parking spaces; however the applicant is working with the City to possibly enter into a lease agreement to use parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking garage. The lodge proposes a valet service to ensure that the parking garage is used. The ability to use the Rio Grande parking garage is decided by City Council. Other alternative methods such as: • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 2. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. The project is centrally located near the downtown core of Aspen with many nearby amenities, such as a grocery store, directly across the street. A RFTA bus stop is located about a block away. Staff finds that this criterion is met with the condition that the Rio Grande parking garage, or a similar situation, provides off-site parking spaces for the development. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Finding: This criterion is not applicable at this time. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: ' 1.5 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.7 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space). = 5.2 spaces required. 2 22 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 3.5 spaces for the commercial use (1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space) = 25.5 spaces required. Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 5 of 7 P59 VLA. 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Finding: Exhibit B specifically addresses the applicable design standards. Staff finds that the review criterion is met with conditions. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed materials — exposed steel, glass and concrete Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace sidewalks and curb and gutter in accordance with City requirements. The existing curb cuts be removed and replaced with parallel parking and a detached sidewalk. Staff finds this criterion is met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The Engineering Department has major concerns about the construction impacts of this project regarding staging, construction phases, parking and truck traffic, and requests a preliminary construction management plan be submitted as part of Detailed Review. This is added as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will upgrade public infrastructure as needed to serve the project and the public. This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. '•1 Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 6 of 7 I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Finding: The lot has access from an alleyway and from a public street. There are no gates proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 26.445.060. Use Variation Standards. A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone district. The burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following standards related to Use Variations: A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity. B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project's overall mix of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a project will interact and support one another. C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The Applicant is not proposing any use variations as part of the application. Staff finds this section is not applicable. Exhibit A — PD, Project Review 730 E. Cooper Street, Base 1 12/2/14 Page 7 of 7 P61 VLA. VI.A. Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards 26.412.010. Purpose. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape. The character of the City's commercial district is largely established by the variety of uses and the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By requiring certain building elements to be incorporated in the design of new and remodeled buildings, storefronts are more appealing and can contribute to a well-designed, exciting commercial district. Accommodation of the automobile within commercial districts is important to the consistency and quality of pedestrian streetscapes. The standards prescribe certain methods of accommodating on-site parking to achieve environments conducive to walking. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or sun angles. Finally, along with creating architecturally interesting and lively primary streets, the pedestrian nature of downtown can be further enhanced by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Store entrances and display windows along alleyways are encouraged to augment, while not detracting from, the pedestrian interest of primary streets. 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: The Commercial Design Standards assigns the Central Mixed Use (CMU) Character Area to this parcel. P62 Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 1 of 10 m � _ r Ir C-1 ec CL ` `; fi ►► RIMF 17 -, �r�' C1, rl � # - - - Figure 1: Zone District Map. Star indicates subject parcel. Box indicates character area for the purposes of Commercial Design Review. The existing character of the CMU area is described as mostly multifamily residential with shallow setbacks. The main objectives for this area are described as: 1. Reflect a transition in character between the Commercial Core and the outlying residential neighborhoods. 2. Maintain a sense of front yards with landscaping. 3. Provide a sense of human scale. 4. Maintain a visually interesting street edge. S. Encourage outdoors use areas. 6. Minimize visual impacts of parking. The character area is directed toward the parcels that are zoned Mixed Use, as shown above in the zone district map. The guidelines, such as front yards, do not correspond to the Commercial Lodge Zoning of the subject parcel which has no setback requirement. As stated in the review criterion C below, the City may determine that the intent of the guideline is met through alternative methods. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 2 of 10 P63 VI.A. VI.A. The applicant proposes a three story building with a roof deck. The proposed architecture uses exposed steel and glass with concrete accents to reference Aspen's mining past. In terms of the design objectives for this area of Aspen, staff finds that the project is successfully addressing the transition between the Commercial Core and residential neighborhoods, is designed at a pedestrian scale, activates the streetscape, and provides beneficial outdoor areas. Three quarters of the Cooper Avenue blockface where Base 1 Lodge is proposed to be constructed is occupied by the Bell Mountain Condominiums. These condominiums replaced a circa 1950s lodge. While the condominiums have a front setback of about 25" the sideyards are only approximately 5'. The complex includes two primary building modules which are each 64' wide; identical to the proposed width of Base 1. The highest ridgelines of the complex are approximately 31'. Staff finds that Base I is appropriately sized relative to Bell Mountain Condominiums, shown below. Figure 2: Bell Mountain Condominiums To the rear of Base I is the Benedict Commons affordable housing development. Front and side setbacks on this property range from 6-10'. The tallest ridgeline faces Hyman Avenue, and is 36' above grade. The Original Street facade is 82' in length, whereas Base I is proposed to be 100' in length on the Original Street facade. Continuing Figure 3: Benedict Commons Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 3 of 10 down this streetfrontage is the former Aspen Athetic club, which has a size and bulk similar to Base I and is up to 35' tall. Figure 4: Aspen Athletic Club To the east of the project site is a mix of former small lodges converted to condominiums, many of which are vacation rental properties. 802 E. Cooper, directly adjacent to the project site, is a recently remodeled multi family structure with an overall height of 32'. Figure 5: 802 East Cooper Street Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 4of10 P65 VI.A. VI.A. Staff finds that Base I Lodge, with a proposed height of 37'6" to the primary parapet, is consistent with surrounding development. While some nearby properties have a street facing yard or greenspace, this is not a dominant characteristic of the neighborhood. Numerous adjacent sites have tall fences, street facing parking areas, garden level units, windowless facades, or other conditions that affect the relationship of the building to street. Base I Lodge overcomes many of these issues, which are present in the Buckhorn Lodge building that is being replaced. The design guidelines relevant to this proposal are: 2.1 Development on a site of two or more traditional lot width may accommodate additional public walkways and through courts. These should: • Respect the setting of and avoid conflict with an adjacent historic building. • Design the frontage of any walkway or through court with similar attention to articulation, detail and material accorded the primary street facades. 2.2 Public walkways and through courts shall be designed to facilitate access to uses within the link and/or to the rear of the site. • Locate walkways at the sidewalk level. • Locate retail frontage along walkways. • Use architectural detailing to enhance the pedestrian experience. • Design lighting, signage and landscapes to create human scale and to enhance the pedestrian experience. A walkway is proposed along the west property line that accesses an interior courtyard from the sidewalk level. Staff finds that Guidelines 2.1 and 2.2 are met. Parking areas are addressed in Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4, which is not relevant to the proposed project. The next set of Guidelines 2.5 — 2.10 address public amenity space, which is discussed below — the applicant requests an alternative method as mitigation. Guidelines 2.11 — 2.12 address setbacks, however there are no setback requirements for the CL zone district. The building is oriented perpendicular to the street frontage as described in Guideline 2.13. The applicant requests a height increase from 36' to 37'6" through Commercial Design Review. The maximum height achievable through Commercial Design Review is 40'. The review criteria are listed in 2.14 below. The intent of the guideline is to possibly allow additional height if there is a physical constraint on the property or a community benefit. The Commission and City Council need to decide if the proposed building supports the community by providing diverse lodge room sizes. Staff is supportive of the proposal and recommends approval of the 1.5' height increase. 2.14 A new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two or three stories. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • Step back upper levels to reduce the perceived scale at the street edge. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 5 of 10 • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing Units. o To make a demonstrable contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. The 62.5' width of the proposed building along its primary fa(ade (Cooper St) meets Guideline 2.15. The proposed grid pattern on the fagade visually breaks up the building to meet the intent of guideline 2.16. Physical breaks in the building plane are not proposed. 2.15 The width of a building should convey a human scale. • A new building should step down in height next to a single story historic buildings • Maximum building width should be limited to three traditional lot widths (90ft.) 2.16 Subdivide the mass into smaller "modules" that convey a human scale. • Multiple modules can be connected to create a larger building. Staff is supportive of the project and recommends approval of conceptual commercial design review. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Finding: See discussion above. P67 Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 6 of 10 VI.A. VI.A. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Finding: The proposed public amenity is located on the roof. The roof will be open to the public and a public access easement will be provided to ensure accessibility. A small courtyard area is proposed along the west elevation accessed from a walkway located along the western edge of the building. Section 26.575.030 allows alternative methods of public amenity as described below: "The Commission may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of a otherwise required cash -in -lieu payment. " Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides significantly more public amenity than required — 1,465 sf is required and 4,503 sf is proposed including the courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the purpose of the public amenity requirement which is to "contribute to an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places and settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. " Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an acceptable alternate public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and recommends approval with the condition that an access easement be provided for the public. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Finding: Street trees are proposed. The standard does not apply because the applicant proposes rooftop public amenity to satisfy the alternative method requirement. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 7 of 10 VI.A. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Finding: n/a. An alternate method is proposed that is not at grade. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. Rather it provides a positive and creative area that provided mountain views to the public. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Finding: Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides significantly more public amenity than required — 1,465 sf is required and 4,503 sf is proposed including the courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the purpose of the public amenity requirement which is to "contribute to an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places and settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. " Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an acceptable alternate public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and recommends approval with the condition that an access easement be provided for the public. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Finding: The trash recycle area is located on the property adjacent to the retail space and is accessed off of the alley. The applicant is working with the Environmental Health Department to receive approval for a reduced trash size. The required size for this type of development is 20'w x 15'X 10'h. Approval by the Environmental Health Department is a condition of Detailed Review. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 8 of 10 VLA. Staff Finding: The Utility Department is concerned about the location of the transformer and the ability for the transformer to be open to the sky (it is currently covered). Resolution of the transformer location/design is required as part of Detailed Review. The applicant is required to meet the above mentioned Codes. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co -located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding: The utility and trash areas are co -located along the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met to the extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: These areas are located off of the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Finding: The utility trash area is located on an alley. A fence shall be reviewed during Detail Review. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. Staff Finding: A 0' setback is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is met. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Finding: The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. An easement is required for service provider access and is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion is met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non -ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 9 of 10 P70 as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Finding: The delivery area shall be noted on the site plan for review during Detailed Review. Staff finds this criterion is not met and requests more information from the applicant to explain the delivery area for Detailed Review. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Finding: A vestibule is not included in the floor plans. Staff finds that this criterion is not met and recommends a vestibule be added to the plans for Detailed Review. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that all mechanical shall be vented through the roof. A roof plan shall be provided for Detailed Review to meet this criterion. Staff finds this criterion is not met and recommends further information for Detailed Review. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Finding: The rooftop mechanical shall be consolidated into one area and screened from view. The applicant proposes significant setbacks for the mechanical equipment, which is clustered toward the center/west side of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Finding: A reduction to the trash and recycle area is subject to review by the Environmental Health Department pursuant to the requirements in Title 12 of the Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards 730 E. Cooper St. — Base 1 Page 10 of 10 P71 VI.A. VI.A. Exhibit C — Staff Findings, Growth Management 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: The applicant requests 80 new lodge pillows (44 new lodge bedrooms — 4 existing lodge bedrooms = 40 new lodge units). Stafffinds that there are available allotments in the 2014 growth year. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with surrounding land uses which include lodge uses along Durant Street. There are no applicable regulatory master plans. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development is requesting a Planned Development site specific approval to define dimensional requirements. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development — Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, Staff is processing the Conceptual design approvals and the Project Review approval concurrent with the Growth Management review. Staff finds that this criterion is met. P72 Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 1 of 7 VLA. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: See review criteria below specific to lodge development. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ('voluntary units") may be deed -restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: n/a. No free market residential development is proposed. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The applicant represents an intention to accommodate all impacts on infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion is met. 26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 2 of 7 P73 VLA. the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections 26.470.080(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. 26.470.70.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed -restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing mitigation in lieu of the development of affordable lodge units. APCHA recommends mitigation onsite or in the form of affordable housing credits. The referral comments are included in Exhibit D. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: n/a. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: n/a. d. The proposed units shall be deed -restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. P74 Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 3 of 7 The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: n/a. Non -Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). The owner of such non -mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Finding.• n/a. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: 1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 4 of 7 P75 VI.A. Affordable Housing Net Average Net Livable Livable Area Required Percentage of Area of Lodge Units (Percentage of Free- Employee Generation Being Added to the Market Net Livable Requiring the Parcel Area) Provision of Mitigation 600 square feet or 30% 60% greater 500 square feet 30% 40% 400 square feet 20% 20% 300 square feet or 10% 10% smaller Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 4 of 7 P75 VI.A. VI.A. When the average unit size falls between the square -footage categories, the required affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees generated. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Finding: The project proposes to decrease the existing commercial net leasable area, which results in a credit of FTEs (full time equivalents). There is a credit of 4 lodge bedrooms existing on the property, so the project proposes to add 40 lodge bedrooms. Following is the calculation for affordable housing mitigation: Existing: Commercial — (3,751 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1, 000 sf nla)= 17.63 FTEs Lodge — (4 bedrooms * 0.6 FTEs) = 2.4 FTEs Total credit — 20.03 FTEs Proposed: Commercial — (3,351 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1,000 sf nla) =15.75 FTEs Lodge - 40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.6 FTEs/bdrm) = 24 FTEs Total proposed — 39.75 FTEs Total FTEs generated: 39.75 — 20.03 = 19.72 FTEs According to the table above, mitigation is required at 10% based on the average lodge unit size. The mitigation requirement is 1.97 FTEs. The applicant proposes no affordable housing mitigation as a trade-off for the proposed affordable lodge project. An employee generation review pursuant to the following review criteria is requested: Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth Management review procedures, and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy, P76 Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 5 of 7 b) Any unique employment characteristic of the operation. c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. e) Any proposed follow-up analysis of the project (e.g. an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. f) For lodge projects: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. The applicant makes an argument that the FTE generation rate of 0.6 FTE/bedroom that applies to lodges within the Lodge, Commercial Lodge and Ski Base zone district should not apply. The lodges in these areas are located at the base of the mountain: Sky Hotel, Little Nell, St. Regis, and the Grand Hyatt. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the generation rate. Hotels with a Lodge Preservation Overlay have a much lower employee mitigation rate of 0.3 FTE/bedroom due. The Lodge Preservation zone district applies to smaller lodges. The applicant had the option to apply to rezone the property with the Lodge Preservation Overlay, but decided to keep the current Commercial Lodge/PD zoning. Existing: Commercial — (3,751 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1, 000 sf nla)= 17.6 FTEs Lodge — (4 bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs) = 1.2 FTEs Total credit —18.8 FTEs Proposed: Commercial — (3,351 sf commercial nla * 4.7 FTEs/1, 000 sf nla) = 15.75 FTEs Lodge - 40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.3 FTEs/bdrm) = 12 FTEs Total proposed — 27.75 FTEs Total FTEs generated: 27.75 —18.8 = 8.95 FTEs The calculation using the 0.3 FTE/bedroom generation rate and the 10% mitigation requirement in accordance with the Land Use Code equals 0.9 FTE. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (1.97 FTEs is a one bedroom affordable housing unit and 0.22 FTEs of housing credits. A 0.9 FTE mitigation requirement is less than a full FTE and can be a housing credit). Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 6 of 7 P77 VI.A. VI.A. The applicant requests a waiver of the affordable housing requirement. The project provides affordable lodging with room sizes that are about 173 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. There are no review criteria specific to waiving the affordable housing requirement. As part of the review process City Council is asked to determine whether a waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate. Exhibit C Base 1 — 730 E. Cooper Ave. Growth Management Page 7 of 7 DRC- Comments for BASE 1 VLA. Engineering Department Hailey Guglielmo, 970.429.2751, hailey.guglielmokcityofaspen.com These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. 1) Transportation Impact Analysis: a) Please provide a TIA narrative which follows page 12 of the TIA Guidelines. Explain which TDM and MMLOS measures were selected, how they apply to this project, and why these specific measures were selected to benefit the public. b) The TIA states the project proposes new signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices to address pedestrian -vehicle conflicts at driveways. It is not clear on the plan sheet how this is accomplished and should be elaborated to receive TDM credit for the measure. c) Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor is between 1 and 1.2. 2) Pedestrian Improvements: a) Address the connection between the alley and west pedestrian path. How will this western path be utilized and does there need to be accommodation for pedestrians in the alley? Depending on the use of the walkway the project may need improvements within the alley to make it ADA compliant. b) The corner of Cooper Ave and Original St could be a potential location for a pedestrian bulb out. This option should be considered given the long crossing distances and level of pedestrian traffic in this area. c) The building overhang into the ROW must have a minimum height of 7'. Include information on how the overhang is supported. 3) Drainage: a) Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The conceptual design does not address WQCV or drainage requirements. 4) Snow Storage: a) A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. If the rooftop deck is to be utilized throughout the winter, where will snow storage from the roof take place? 5) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: a) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. Due to the current condition, the curb and gutter along the entire property will need to be replaced. b) Detectable domes are not required where pedestrian walkways cross an alley. c) Provide details of building entrances to accommodate ADA standards. Sidewalks within the ROW may not be altered to accommodate hotel entrances. 1 P79 VI.A. d) A commercial building requires an 8' sidewalk and 5' buffer between the sidewalk and street. This standard is not met on the proposed plan. e) Directional ADA ramps are required on the corner of Cooper Ave and Original St. 6) Alley: a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards with a concrete apron. b) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. c) Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. d) Building shall not overhang into the alley. 7) Parking a) Include a guest loading/unloading area. A designated area must be provided as guest loading shall not take place within the travel lanes of the street. 8) Construction Management a) Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. A construction management plan shall be submitted for review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 9) Excavation Stabilization a) Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. 10) Survey Requirements a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. Environmental Health C.J. Oliver, 970.920.5008, CJ.Oliver(acityofaspen.com Our comments for Base 1 are that this project fits under the category of a lodge with a restaurant and fewer than 60 rooms which means it will need 200 square feet of trash space that fits the following section on the municipal code Sec. 12.10.040. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Lodges, specifically paragraph c which states - c. Lodges with sixty (60) or fewer guest rooms must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. ACSD Tom Bracewell, 970.925.3601, tom(a aspensan.com The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments. 2 ':1 VI.A. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A "Line Replacement Request" and a "Collection System Agreement are required for these projects. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 3 M VI.A. The applicant's engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior to final design. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Parks Department Ben Carlsen, 970.429.2034, ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com I would like for the contractors to plan on preservation of the cottonwood tree in the right of way in front of Johnny McGuire's. I apologize for not being clear on that in the beginning. However, after taking a closer look at that tree, I would like to discuss a plan for its preservation. It will take some planning and management, however, I think that there are real benefits to maintaining that canopy on site. The spruce tree in front will likely be full mitigation, but may be removed. Transportation Lynn Rumbaugh, 970.920.5038, lynn.rumbaugh(a cityofaspen.com 1. Parking: Parking requirements are not meant to be waived via the TIA. These are two separate and distinct programs. Should the two be linked, staff would recommend that additional/enhanced use of TDM/MMLOS measures be required. 2. Narrative: There is no narrative included with the TIA. There is some narrative throughout the other documents, but it is not necessarily related to the TIA. For example other areas of the application mention WE -cycle, marketing and bus passes that are not indicated in the TDM tool. Staff would request that the TIA be completed as per the guidelines along with a narrative that directly corresponds to the TDM/MMLOS tools. 3. TDM tool a. On-site servicing is selected in the tool, but without narrative on what that is — we cannot determine whether it applies to the site as intended. b. Shared shuttle service (as defined in the guidelines) indicates an employee shuttle. Within the application materials it seems that the applicant is planning a hotel shuttle but there is no indication of an employee shuttle. Please address in the narrative so that applicability can be determined. c. Bike sharing is discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool. Should a revised TIA include bike sharing as a measure, detail should be provided in the narrative including: 1. Is participation in the form of memberships or something larger such as capital? 2. Are passes made free or subsidized? 3. Who receives passes (employees/guests/both)? 4 VLA. d. Transit subsidies are discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool. Should a revised TIA include pass subsidies as a measure, detail should be provided in the narrative including: 1. Amount of subsidy 2. Eligibility for subsidy (employees and/or guest) Utilities Department Andy Rossello, 970.429.1999, andy.rossello(kcityofaspen.com These plans seem pretty conceptual with very little engineering components (Utilities at least) contemplated. The Developer has been in talks with The City Electric Department For Base 1. If three phase power is requested there may need to be some substantial electrical distribution system upgrades required as there is not currently a 3 phase circuit in the vicinity, these upgrade costs shall be borne solely by the developer. The site has also not contemplated a Transformer on site which would be a requirement. The transformer area should be a minimum of 10x10 clear to sky. Continued discussions with City electric including submittal of all load calculation forms is required. City water system has capacity in the vicinity of the development. All 2014 (or newest adopted at time of building permit) Water Distribution System Standards will apply. Building Department Denis Murray, 970.429.2761, denis.murraygcityofaspen.com 1) Percentage of openings on the north and west side of both structures in relation to the fire separation distance. May need to be reduced. 2) The allowed projection of the awning, canopy, marquee into the ROW. May need to be reduced. 3) The snow shed design of the roofs need to be addressed. 4) Neither plan shows a passenger drop off and do not have parking? 5) Both buildings need to show an accessible route from each unit to the trash and recycling area and toilet facility from within the property. 6) The size of the trash and recycling area must not interfere with the utility and meters. 7) If restaurants are proposed shafts or some provision for exhausting kitchen equipment must be made. Grease and oil and sand interceptors will be required. 8) The accessible sleeping units are required to be provided with roll in showers. 9) An accessible route to recreation facilities, dinning seating at bars, counters, tables will need to be provided. 10) The projects interfaces with CDOT ROW's be aware they have their own permit process. 5 ON VI.A. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Cindy Christensen, 970.920.5455, cindy.christensengcityofaspen.com Based on the type of development for the property of which generates additional employees in the service industry, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of 730 East Cooper with the requirement that the applicant must provide on-site mitigation for 2.22 FTE's. Should the applicant be unable to provide on-site housing, the preferred method for the mitigation requirement of 2.22 FTE's is via the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit program. The redevelopment as a lodge creates employee generation within the service industry; therefore, the Board recommends that the 2.22 FTE's are mitigated at no higher than Category 2. The land use code states that the additional employee generation mitigation of 2.22 can be satisfied at a Category 4 rate, with the applicant having the right to choose to provide mitigation at a lower category designation. Due to the nature of the business, the employees that are generated by the development are within the service industry — Category 1 and 2 income levels, thus the recommendation is that the mitigation is satisfied at no higher than Category 2. 6 730 £wit C o-o-pe�r A verwu.Q�, 74 spPiw ,4N Af PLICAiION FOR: x' 17 P rcj'eclt IZ e/v Ce/w., M Q S £wRAwvpt%o-wk aw& A UoctmR1ntk ., cvw& C o-wvnRircr%aL SU13MIfi'rfD 13Y NAAS LAND PLANNIN(5, LLC 420 F. MAIN STRff-r, SUITE 08.14 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (97©) 925-7819 m16tci & h1p kp eovv. oo v ©Citdb�✓v' 16, 2014 PID No, 2737-192-27-904 VI.A. VI.A. R.M. AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PD PROJECT REVIEW, GMQ.S EXEMPTIONS AND ALLOTMENTS, AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE SASE1 LODGE DEVELOPMENT Submitted by: 730 E. Cooper, LLC Mark Hunt, Manager 2001 North Halsted, Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614 (312) 850-1680 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultant 420 E. Main Street, Suite 13-10 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Email: mitch tl hlpaspen.com PID# 2737-182-27-904 VI.A. VI.A. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTR+ODUCTION............................................................................ I IL BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................3 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONiPROPOSAL.................................................6 • Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table..............................10 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS...............................................................14 A. Conunon Development Review Procedures and Combined Reviews......—... 14 B. Planned Development (PD) Review..................................................15 C. GMQS Allotments and Requirements................................................21 D. Conceptual Commercial Design Review............................................26 E. Parking...................................................................................35 F. Impact Fees..............................................................................37 G. Transportation Impact Analysis......................................................37 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form, and Homeowners Association Compliance Form; Exhibit 2: Pre -Application Conference Sununaiy prepared by Sara Adams; Exhibit 3: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership and Authority; Exhibit 4: Prior Approvals; Exhibit 5: Vicinity Map; Exhibit 6: Transportation Impact Analysis; Exhibit 7: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant; Exhibit 8: An executed application fee agreement; and, Exhibit 9: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three -hundred (300) feet of the subject property. PID# 2737-182-27904 Z• VI.A. V I.A. ..R VI.A. L Introduction: This application seeks Planned Development (PD) approval to develop an affordable lodge to be known as "Basel Lodge" on the property located at 730 East Cooper Avenue (a/k/a the Buckhorn Arms Lodge). This 6,927 square foot lot is located on the northwest corner of East Cooper Avenue and Original Street, across from the City Market loading docks. The property is legally described as Lots R and S, and the east 9.27 square feet of Lot Q, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. The purpose of a Planned Development review is, according to Section 26.445.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "'Code"), "to eiicour !ge flexib lihj a)id iiiiiovatlorl hi fire developruerrt of laud." An application for a Planned Development may be submitted on any parcel smaller than 27,000 square feet if the Conununity Development Director (CDD) believes there exists an opportunity to advance a significant community goal through the Planned Development procedures. As the attached Pre -Application Conference Summary indicates, the CDD has made this determination and is allowing this proposal to proceed through PD Project Review. The applicant's proposed redevelopment of the Buckhorn Lodge, along with the concurrently submitted PD application for development of the associated "Base2 Lodge' at 232 East Main Street, will create a pair of unique, jointly functioning affordable lodges in the downtown Aspen area. The lack of affordable lodging in Aspen has been a hot -button issue in the city for quite some time. City staff and elected officials have been outwardly hoping for exactly the type of low-priced lodging that is now being proposed by the applicant. None of the other lodging proposals that have come before the City in the last who -knows -how -many years have addressed this need. Furthermore, the lodging proposed for this site (and for the 232 Main Street property) has no free-market residential component and no timeshare component.. It is simply a traditional lodge with unit sizes that will unquestionably result in relatively affordable nightly rates. The lodge will provide private bunkrooms (approximately 173 square feet each) and feature other desirable amenities that are meant to bring "fun, vitality and enjoyment" for not only its guests but also the Aspen public at large. The hope is that these lodges will fill the undeniable hole in Aspen's lodging supply that has become a huge barrier to attracting young families who night otherwise choose to vacation here. This Basel Lodge and its sister lodge will, together, advance the significant community goals of economic sustainability through the provision of affordable short-term lodging in Aspen, but it requires the flexibility of a Planned Development review in order to accommodate its dimensions and unique attributes. In 2009, the subject property received City Council approval to lift an existing floor area ratio limit. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009 (attached as part of Exhibit 4) replaced a previous, owner -volunteered FAR limitation with a requirement that any future development on the property be processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In 2013, Basel Lodge/730 L. Cooper rf ve. Plaimed Demlonmetat Page 1 P91 VI.A. the City replaced the PUD chapter of the Code with the current PD standards. Therefore, all dimensional requirements for this site must now be approved through the PD process. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(8)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.445, Planned Development; 26.470.050, Growth Management, General Requirements; 26.470.070.8, GMQS, Lodge Development; and 26.710.200, Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District. ADD The application is divided into four sections, with this Section providing a brief introduction, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form, and Homeowners Association Compliance Form; • Exhibit 2: Pre -Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams; • Exhibit 3: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership and Authority; • Exhibit 4: Prior Approvals; • Exhibit 5: Vicinity Map; • Exhibit 6: Transportation Impact Analysis; • Exhdbit 7: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 8: An executed application fee agreement; and, • Exhibit 9: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three - hundred (300) feet of the subject property. In addition, existing conditions are depicted on a survey and various plans that Accompany this application. Similarly, all proposed development is depicted on the Accompanying architectural plans prepared by Camburas & Theodore, Ltd (C+T). While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information anti/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper Ave. Planned Dew' P9-2 Page 2 VI.A. II. Background & Existing Conditions: Background: The Buckhorn Arms Lodge property at 730 East Cooper Avenue was built in the 1960s as a mixed-use building with conunercial space on the ground floor, nine (9) hotel/lodge units on the upper floor, and additional commercial- and lodge -associated space in the basement. At that time, the property was zoned C-1, Commercial. The property was tater rezoned Office, which rendered the lodging component a non- conforming use. In 1983, in order to eliminate the nonconformity, the owner sought to have the property rezoned to Commercial Lodge (CL). Pursuant to Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1983, the City Council rezoned the property to CL but Iimited the FAR for the property to 1:1. In 1996, pursuant to Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1996, the City adopted amendments to the Code to create a "level playing field" for owners of lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district by granting the ability to convert to other uses or to expand the lodge use. A new definition of "lodge" specific to properties in the LP zone was adopted as part of the amendments. The owner of the Buckhorn requested that the new "lodge" definition apply to their property, and to allow for the inclusion of kitchens and short/long term rentals. Ordinance 46, Series of 1996 amended the definition of lodge to read as follows: Lodge iwatrs a building upitliin the Lodge Preservatiou Overlay zolie district or a bnddnrg presently zoned Cotnntercial Lodge (CL) cotttaittitrg three (3) or ttrore itidiv dual twonts for the purpose of providing lodging facilities ott a short or lottg- tertlt basis, for cotttpettsatiott, zt)itlt or ic)itliout meals, attd v4dclt Inas cotnntott facilities for reservation attd cleaning services, attd m -site tnanagetttetrt atad reception. A lodge ttlap ittclttde kitchens Within individual rental traits. The only properties that were zoned CL at that time (anti to this clay) were the Buckhorn, the North of Nell and the Aspen Square. In 1998, the owners of the Buckhorn converted the nine lodge units into three (3) multi - pillow lodge units and added a kitchen to each unit. There was never a change in use to residential and, therefore, these units are still considered lodge units. The three existing lodge units consume 2,287 square feet of area for an average size of approximately 762 square feet per unit. As explained below, the applicant is proposing that, based on the size and configurations of the units, there are effectively 6.5 lodge units, 13 "pillows," and seven (7) lodge bedrooms to be credited towards the redevelopment. Existing CoMitions: The 6,927 square foot Buckhorn Arms Lodge property is currently zoned Commercial Lodge with a mandatory Planned Development Overlay (CL/PD). The building contains a mix of commercial and lodging use, with the basement and ground floors in commercial use while the second floor contains three (3) multi -pillow lodge units. Base] Lodge1730 E. Cooter Aiv. Plawied Dei elonmew Page 3 P93 VI.A. The lower/ basement level comtnercial space contains 1,937 square feet of space that is occupied by Johnny McGuire's and LEAF; the entire level other than a narrow hallway and a mechanical room is net leasable. Johnny McGuire's, Dominos Pizza, Tulips salon, and a small barbershop that is accessed from the alley side of the property occupy the ground floor area of 2,435 square feet; all of the ground floor other than a narrow set of stairs from the alley side of the building down to the basement level is leasable space. As mentioned previously, the entire second floor is in lodge use. The three existing lodge units on the second floor consume 2,287 square feet of area for an average size of approximately 762 square feet per unit. It is proposed that, based on the size and configurations of these units, there are effectively 6.5 lodge units, 13 "pillows," and seven (7) lodge bedrooms to be credited towards the redevelopment. Lodge Units 1 and 3 are one -bedroom units, each with a full kitchen and a pullout couch in its living room; these units contains four (4) pillows each, or a total of eight (8) pillows between them. Lodge Unit 2 is a two-bedroom unit with a full kitchen and a pullout couch in its living room; this. unit contains 5-6 pillows, depending how a double bed is counted. In an effort to be conservative, this application considers the double bed to represent just one (1) pillow. Based on the Code provision (Section 26.470.100.A.1.) stipulating that lower level commercial space in the CL zone district generates 3.525 full-time equivalent employees (FTE) per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space, the existing basement level generates 6.83 FTE. Similarly, said Code section also provides that ground floor commercial space generates 4.7 FTE for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area and the upper floor lodging use generates 0.6 FTE per lodging bedroom. Thus, the ground floor commercial uses generate 11.44 FTE and the second floor lodge units (effectively 7 bedrooms, 13 pillows) generate 4.2 FTE. In total, therefore, the existing nix of uses and spaces on the property generates 22.47 FTE (6.83 + 11.44 + 4.2). Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial uses generate an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area, or 4.372 off-street spaces. The lodge use generates an off-street parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per lodge unit. At effectively 6.5 lodge units, the required off-street parking is 3.25 spaces. As such, and since the existing uses were never approved through special review to satisfy their off-street parking requirements concurrently, the total required off-street parking for the existing uses is 7.622 spaces (4,372 + 3.25). The property has multiple points of vehicular access. A good portion of the frontage on Original Street (in and along the right-of-way) is paved and used for the Domino's Pizza delivery vehicles; this same paved area can also be accessed from the alley, at the northeast corner of the property. In addition, a paved parking area at the front of the property is accessed from both Original Street and Cooper Avenue. Mule this paved parking area accommodates eight vehicles, two of these eight spaces encroach into the public right-of- way. As such, the on-site/off-street parking really totals just six (6) spaces, which represents an existing off -sheet parking deficit of 1.622 spaces (6 minus 7.622). Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper lite. Planned DemeP94ent Page 4 VI.A. The only portions of the property that qualify as public amenity space are the paved area in front of the building, where Johi-my McGuire's maintains some seating, and the grass corner of the property where a picnic table resides. The first has a total area of 864.8 square feet and the latter is 600.3 square feet. These two spaces sum to 1,465.1 square feet, which, on this 6,926 square foot lot, equates to 21.15% public amenity space and represents the total public amenity space replacement requirement for the redevelopment. Surrotaidirtg Uses: The subject property is surrounded largely by intensive multi -family residential and commercial uses. To the north, across the alley, are the high-density Benedict Commons multi-fanuly affordable housing property and its sub -grade parking garage. Immediately to the west of the Benedict Commons are the multi -family Brownstones and the commercial. Hannah Dustin Building, which resides directly across the street from the new Art Museum. To the east and southeast, across Original Street, is a pair of multi -family residential developments. This is also where Highway 82's Independence Pass spills into town, making for a fairly busy intersection, particularly in the summer months. To the south and across Cooper Avenue is the loading clock area of the City Market. The City Market building and its surface parking lot consume the entire half block on the south side of Cooper Avenue, between Original and Spring Streets. The five units of the Bell Mountain Towiil-iomes and its sub -grade parking garage consume the rest of the block, to the west of the subject property. A IFTA bus stop is located at the corner of Spring and Cooper, directly in front of the Bell Mountain Townhomes, conveniently serving the area with public transportation. In a more general sense, the property is merely a two -block walk from the commercial core and the gondola. Shopping and dining opportunities are very close by, including a full grocery store just across the street. There is a good deal of lodging in the immediate area as well, including the Aspen Square Condominiums just a block away, and the Sky Hotel and the Little Nell within two blocks. Basel Lodge1730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Plaitried Dewlny iew Page S P95 VI.A. IIL Proiect Description/rhe Proposal; The proposed development is unlike any other to come before the City for review in the last 40 some -odd years. As mentioned above, the applicant's proposed redevelopment of the Buckhorn Arms Lodge will create a unique, affordable lodge in the downtown Aspen area. The lack of low to moderately priced lodging in Aspen has been an issue facing the City and local economy for quite soiree time. The City has been pushing for exactly the type of lodging that is now proposed Herein. None of the other lodging proposals that have come before the City in recent times have addressed this need in any kind of pure and traditional lodging form. For example, the lodge development proposed for this site has no free-market residential component and no timeshare or fractional estate component. It is simply a lodge with small, private bunkrooms (approximately 173 net livable square feet each) that will dictate low nightly rates, yet it includes highly desirable features and amenities that will not only serve its guests but also be open to the public. As difficult as it may be to believe after all that the community has seen and heard over the last several decades, this proposal is real and will, hopefully, be fully embraced. This lodge, and the associated Basel Lodge proposal, will combine to advance the significant community goals of economic sustainability and the "messy" kind of vitality that has been in almost constant decline by providing fun, affordable options for places to stay in Aspen, but it requires the flexibility of a P1armed Development review in order to accommodate its dimensions and unique attributes. The proposed Basel Lodge design takes its cues and inspiration from Colorado's and Aspens rich, mountain mining history and evokes a modern interpretation of the honest construction and material make-up of a rugged and functional mining structure. The architecture incorporates aged steel columns and beams grounded by oversized concrete bases. Large, clear panes of glass span the beams and columns, providing open views to the exterior and surrounding natural beauty but also providing intrigue and an ever- changing appearance for those who view it from the outside. It is intended that each room will be provided with shades that will feature various designs facing the outside so that the appearance of the building will be ever changing, depending which shades are pulled down and to what degree. The Basel Lodge will include a pair of accessory commercial spaces at the street level as well as its lobby and reception spaces and a 533 square foot, open-air public amenity courtyard. The courtyard is open to the sky and accessible through the lobby area and from the five (5) foot wide walkway that will run along the entire west side of the property. A 15 -foot deep by 10 -foot wide utility/trash/recycling area is cut out from the northwest corner of the ground floor, along the alley. The two ground floor accessory commercial spaces are intended to house food service establishments that will serve not only lodge guests but also the local Aspen community, in general. The two accessory commercial spaces include 1,674 and 1,507 square feet of net Basel Lod e/730 K Coorper Ave. Plaiwed Dew! P96''1t Page 6 VI.A. leasable space, respectively, or a combined total of 3,181 square feet of ground floor net leasable space. At 4.7 FTE per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area, these spaces will generate 14.95 FTE. The basement level of the Basel Lodge will include functional spaces as well as fun amenities that will also be open to the general public. For example, the basement level will include two lanes of bowling, men's and women's restrooms, a lounge area, and mechanical and back of house spaces. There will be two stories of lodge rooms above the ground floor. These two stories will have identical floor plans that include eighteen (18) lodge rooms and two (2) lock -offs each, for a total of forty (40) lodging units/bedrooms. Set up as affordable rooms at an average size of approximately 173 square feet of net livable area per unit, the configurations are meant to provide great flexibility that will serve the gamut of potential users, from singles to families, and from couples to small groups. All sides of the building have large windows, providing ample natural light in every room. The ground floor public amenity courtyard that is open to the sky supplies windows and natural light to the internal lodge rooms as well. Some rooms have twin beds, some have queens, many have bunk bed configurations and nearly all allow for roll -in cots. In total, there are thirty (30) beds per floor (14 twins and 16 queens), combining to supply a total of sixty (60) beds (28 twins and 32 queens) and ninety-two (92) pillows. Finally, an outdoor terrace is proposed on the rooftop. This terrace area will serve the guests of the lodge but also be open to the general public. The central portion of the rooftop, around the ground floor courtyard space, will house the elevator and stair enclosures as well as mechanical spaces and men's and women's restrooms. The outdoor rooftop terrace includes 3,745 square feet of public amenity space. Combined with the ground level courtyard (533 square feet) and the open walkway along the west side of the property (488.63 square feet), the proposal includes a total of 4,766.63 square feet of public amenity space, which equates to 68.8% of the lot area. Access to the Basel Lodge will be via entry doors facing South Original Sheet, and doors to the two commercial spaces will also face Original. The sidewalks along both street frontages will be rebuilt as detached walks separated from the street by parkway strips with street trees. All of the existing curb cuts will be eliminated and new curb and gutters will be installed. As a result of eliminating the long curb cuts, five on -street, parallel parking spaces will be created (three on Original and two on Cooper). As designed, the two ground floor commercial spaces and their 1,674 and 1,507 square feet of net leasable area, respectively, generate 4.7 FTE for every 1,000 square feet of such space (per Code Section 26.470.100.A.1.). Thus, these 3,181 square feet of net leasable area generate 14.95 FTE (3.181 x 4.7). Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Planned Dewlnym,ent Page 7 P97 VI.A. While the Code, at Section 26.470.100.A.1., provides that each lodge bedroom in CL zone district generates 0.6 FTE, this application proposes that it is far more appropriate to instead utilize the 0.3 FTE per lodging bedroom generation rate associated with properties in the Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay zone dishict, or an even lower rate. The LP zoning is typical of Aspen's small lodges in the areas surrounding but outside of the commercial core and mountain base areas. The 0.6 FTE per lodge bedroom standard is applied to 4 - and 5 -star lodges like the Sky Hotel, the Little Nell, the St. Regis and similar levels of accommodations where the average room sizes are usually more than double those proposed herein and where the level of service is considerably higher than will be the case in the affordable Basel Lodge. Using the far more appropriate and reasonable 0.3 FTE per lodge bedroom standard, the 40 bedrooms of the Basel Lodge will theoretically generate 12 FTE (40 x 0.3). Therefore, between the two corrunercial spaces and the lodging, the proposed development will generate 26.95 FTE (14.95 + 12). Given that the existing development on the subject property generates 22.47 FTE (as described in the Existing Conditions section, above), the net additional employee generation associated with the Basel Lodge development is 4.48 PTE (26.95 minus 22.47). Further, since the average net livable area of the proposed lodge units is less than 300 square feet (actually, approximately 174 net livable square feet per unit), Code Section 26.470.070(8)(a)(2) dictates that percentage of employee generation requiring the provision of mitigation is 10%. With a total additional employee generation of 4.48 FTE, the Code, therefore, requires the provision of mitigation for 0.448 FTE. In the interest of incentivizing the type of lodging being proposed herein and in the interest of keeping the cost for tlus lodging down, it is proposed that no employee mitigation be required for this Basel Lodge or the associated Basel Lodge at Main and Monarch. It is necessary to achieve a minimum density of rooms and beds, not just on this site but also as combined with the proposed Base2 Lodge at Main and Monarch. Accordingly, it is necessary to develop the entire parcel to achieve this critical mass, leaving no room to accommodate off-street parking or the provision of on-site employee housing. In fairness, when one develops affordable housing, they are not required to mitigate it by developing affordable lodging. Likewise, it is proposed that, as an incentive for development of affordable lodging (especially without a free-market residential component to offset costs), one should not be required to mitigate the addressing of such a strong community goal by having to provide affordable housing. Consequently, it is proposed that the P&zZ and City Council simply waive the requirement to provide mitigation (in the current case, for only 0.448 FTE). Again, the proposed development includes forty (40) lodge rooms, which the Code says generates a requirement for twenty (20) off-street parking spaces (40 x 0.5). The 3,181 square feet of net leasable commercial space generates a need to provide 3.181 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the cumulative off-street parking requirement for the subject PD proposal would be 21.56 spaces (23.181 less the 1.622 space existing deficit). However, the Code provides at Section 26.515.030 that, when a project has parking requirements in Base 1 Lodge/730 E. Cooper Aue. Planned Deme P98 enl Page 8 VI.A. multiple categories (residential, commercial, lodging, etc.), the provision of on-site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use concurrently pursuant to Special Review, or as is proposed here, through approval of a Final PD Plan. Thus, the requirement for 21.56 off-street parking spaces is flexible and can be concurrently satisfied with the higher of the two requirements, or 20 total spaces. It should also be noted that there is no parking requirement for lodges in the CC or C-1 Zone Districts, which are just half a block away (to the west). The proximity of these zones to the subject property should be considered when determining what the parking requirement for this PD will ultimately be. Although the proposed development does not include any off-street parking spaces, the applicant intends to provide several exceptional and innovative Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures aimed at reducing automobile usage and dependency and minimizing traffic generation, so as to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and City as a whole. For example, the applicant volunteers to provide the following programs: • Encourage guests and employees to use all available means of alternative transportation to the maximum extent possible. • Ensure that, when a booking is made, the guest will be told that automobiles are not needed and will be notified of the bus system's convenience and availability as well as the lodge's proximity to downtown and free shuttle services. Based upon the experience of many Aspen lodges, most guests do not bring or rent cars in the winter. In the summer, many guests do bring or rent cars. The opportunity for pedestrian and/or bicycle use in the summer is substantial and if proper marketing is done, a significant reduction in the number of vehicles can be accomplished. Guests arranging reservations will also be informed about the facilities, services and programs described below. • Provide bus passes to all employees who live clown valley of available free service. There is a RFTA bus stop on the subject block. • Ensure continuous provision of airport and local destination shuttle services via a van shuttle service to be shared between the Basel and Basel Lodges or through an agreement with an existing lodge or management company that maintains such shuttle services. • The lodge will either provide bicycles or partner with WeCycle (the local bike -sharing program) to maintain a fleet of bicycles available for use by its guests. The availability of these bikes will be included in marketing materials, and guests will be informed of their availability when reservations are made and during check-in, It is anticipated that many guests will use the bikes when coupled with the shuttle service and bus system convenience, and will neither rent cars nor choose to drive in Aspen. Basel Lodge1730 K Cooper Ave. Plaii aed Devern—ent Page 9 P99 VI.A. With implementation of the above-described programs and measures, parking and transportation demand attributable to the proposed development will be substantially decreased and effectively minimized. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the lack of any lodge use parking requirement just half a block to the west, the effective creation of five (5) new on -sheet parking spaces through elimination of the existing curb cuts, and the desire to aid in the affordability of the proposed lodging, it is requested that the concurrent off-street parking requirement be eliminated through the PD process (incorporating special review) without a requirement for payment in -lieu. If required to provide on-site parking and employee housing mitigation at a standard rate, the result would be an entirely different project. It would instead likely have to mirror the vast majority of "lodging" proposals the City has received in the last two decades. That is, it would instead be a development with far less lodging, likely split into fractional estates, and a floor or two of free-market residential penthouse apartments. The lodge units would be fewer and larger, and less affordable. The rooftop deck would likely be privatized, open only to use by owners of the penthouse units. The restaurant spaces would be similarly unaffordable, and the on-site amenities would be open only to residents and guests of the project. The resulting community benefits would be relatively negligible as compared with the impacts to be absorbed and it would be one more development that furthers the perception of Aspen as an unaffordable destination. The proposed Dimensional Requirements for the Basel Lodge PD, given the description of the project provided above as well as the accompanying plans, are detailed below in comparison with the dimensional requirements of the underlying CL Zone District. Basel Lodge Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table, CL Zoning and Proposed Planned Development DIMENSIONAL COMMERCIAL LODGE BASE1 LODGE PLANNED REQUIREMENT (CL) ZONE DISTRICT DEVELOPEMNT (PD) Minimum Gross Lot Area No requirement No requirement Minimum Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit No requirement Not applicable Minimum Lot Width No requirement No requirement Minimum Front Yard Setback No requirement No requirement Minimum Side Yard Setback No requirement No requirement Minimum Rear Yard Setback No requirement No requirement Basel Lodge1730 K Cooper Ave. Plairraed Dees P1001"r Page 10 VI.A. Minimum 15' W (includes adjacent 5' Utility%Trash/Recycle Areal 20'W x 15'D x 10'H i wide walkway for roll-out) x - 15'Dx10'H1 28' for two-story elements; 38' for three-story elements, 34' to roof terrace; Maximum Height which may be increased to 37-6" to 3rd floor parapet; 40' through Commercial 44' to top of 41h floor 2 Design Review Minimum Distance between Buildings on the No requirement Not applicable Lot 68%0 (3,745 square feet at roof terrace, plus 533 square feet Public Amenity Space3 21.15% (1,465 square feet, at ground level courtyard, per existing) 3 plus 488 square feet at west side walkway = 4,766 square feet total) 3 2.5:1 Cumulative; 2.53:1 Cumulative; 4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4 1:1 for Commercial uses; and 1.05:1 for Commercial uses; 4 2:1 for Lodging 2.35:1 for Lodging 4 Maximum Residential Unit 1,500-2,000 square feet net Not applicable Size livable 1 space per 1,000 net leasable square feet of commercial space (100% may be provided through a payment Minimum Off -Street in lieu); No requirement 5 Parking 5 0.5 spaces per lodge unit (fewer may be approved by Special Review; no requirement for lodge units in CC or C-1 Zones) 5 M66 -WOR 1: Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle Area requirements of Code Section 12.10 do not provide a requirement specifically tailored to a lodge development with fewer than sixty (60) guest rooms and commercial spaces that will contain or have the capacity to contain an establishnient with retail food services, The 20'Wx15'Dx10'H requirement stipulated in the Table is a intended to demonstrate a combination of the largest requirements for commercial buildings and lodges, but no such actual requirement has been codified. Dimensions of the Utility/Trash/Recycle Area are subject to variation through Special Review under Code Section 12.10.080 when an applicant desires to reduce the size requirements and/or feels that the requirements cannot be met given the nature of the property. The applicant is proposing that the Utility/Trash/Recycle Basel Lodgel730 E. Cooper Ave. Pkaiiied Develorn;rew Page I I P101 VI.A. Area dimensions proposed herein be approved as part of the Planned Development rather than through a separate special review (as a "Combined Review" pursuant to Code Section 26.304.060.B.1.). 2 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4., specific exceptions to height limitations are allowed, as may be applicable. 3 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.8., 25% of the area of the parcel shall be provided as public amenity; however, for redevelopment of parcels on which less than 25% currently exists, the existing (prior to redevelopment) percentage shall be the effective requirement. While off-site improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved to satisfy the requirement, this proposal has not requested inclusion or credit for the 651.8 square feet of new parkway strips to be added between the new sidewalks and the new curb and gutters. Instead, consistent with Code Section 26.575.030.C.4., and also consistent with precedent for allowing use of outdoor restaurant decks and seating areas on private property to satisfy Public Amenity requirements, this PD proposes that similar outdoor spaces on private property, but which shall remain open to the general public, be used to not only satisfy but greatly exceed the 21.15% requirement (the proposal includes 325% of the required Public Amenity, plus the parkway strips). 4 : Per Code Section 26.575.020.D.: decks, balconies, loggias, gazebos, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed-use, commercial, or lodge building within the CL Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations; patios developed at or within six inches of finished grade shall not be counted towards Floor Area; etc. Accordingly, the basement level, the ground floor courtyard, the rooftop deck, and the utility/trash/recycle area, among other areas, are not counted as Floor Area in the PD. Actual commercial unit space floor area is 3,551.01 square feet (or a 0.513:1 FAR) and actual lodge unit space floor area is 7,960.09 square feet (or 1.15:1 FAR). Because the applicant is voluntarily providing exceptional, desirable amenities and common areas, and the need to accommodate required circulation and egress ways, the resulting floor area limits appear greatly inflated as compared with actual unit space areas. 5 : Per Code Section 26.515.030, whenever the off-street parking is subject to establishiment by adoption of a Final PD Plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Development; an existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped; and, for projects with parking requirements in imultiple categories (commercial, lodging, etc.), the provision of on-site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use concurrently. As explained in the above - provided narratives, it is proposed that no off-street parking be required as part of this PD. As such, the volunteered initigation measures would be required but no payment in lieu of parking would be necessary. Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper Ave. Plawied Dei P10.. Page 12 VI.A. The proposed Basel Lodge Planned Development is fully consistent with surrounding development patterns in terms of uses, densities, building heights and intensities. The property is surrounded largely by dense and busy multi -family residential and commercial uses. There is a good deal of lodging in the area as well, including the four-story Aspen Square Condominiums just a block away, the three-story the Sky Hotel and the four-story Little Nell developments within two blocks. The majority of these sites are developed from lot line to lot line or close to it and with strong street presences. To the north, across the alley, is the three--and-one half (3.5) story high-density Benedict Commons multi -family affordable housing property (27 studio and one -bedroom units) and its sub -grade parking garage. Immediately to the west of the Benedict Conunons are the three-story multi -family Brownstones and the three-story commercial Hannah Dustin Building, which resides directly across the street from the four-plus story Art Museum. To the east and southeast, across Original Sheet, is a pair of three-story multi-fan-uly residential developments. This is also where Highway 82's Independence Pass spills into town, making for a fairly busy intersection, particularly in the sununer months. To the south and across Cooper Avenue is the loading dock area of the City Market. The City Market building and its surface parking lot consume the entire half block on the south side of Cooper Avenue, between Original and Spring Streets. The surface parking is framed by the three-story nwced-use Durant Mall Buildings. The five units of the three-story Bell Mountain Townhomes and its sub -grade parking garage consume the rest of the block, to the west of the subject property. A RFTA bus stop is located at the corner of Spring and Cooper, directly in front of the Bell Mountain Townhomes, conveniently serving the area with public transportation. Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooler A ,e. Planned Dei,elorn►rent Page 13 P103 VI.A. 1V. Review Requirements Section 26.104.100 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the Code) defines a Hotel or Lodge as follows: A building or parcel containing hidividrral rrtrits itsed for overriiglrt lodging by fire general piiblic ori a sliort-terra basis for a fee, With or u4thorrt kitclierrS Within ilydividrral rrlrits, u4th or zortlioitt meals provided acid Whidl ltas co1r1111o11 reservation a11d cleariulg services, conibtrled nfrlities alid ori -site 111atlage111ellt altd reception seivices. Timeshare (a.k.a. fi-actloiial) tlidts aiid tutieshare demloprlletlts are considered hotels for the prtrposes of this Title. For hotels With flexible limit coirfigitratiorrs, also kmit)ir as "lock -off rllrits," each reidable division or "key" shall coiistitrite a lodge rind for the purposes of oris Title. Unless otltereoise approved pui'srrairt to Chapter 26.590 - Timeshare Demlopiwid, occupaiicy periods of a hotel or rrrirt thereof, by ally otie (1) persoti or entity 70rtll all o1r11rership interest irr the hotel or irlrrts thereof, shall trot exceed f1drty (30) coiisecittive days or exceed iiriiety (90) days v tltrti ally caleildar year, regardless of Nie forllt of oznrrers1dp. Occitpaiicy periods for persotr orelitrtres v4th iio oznliership interested (e.g. vacationers) shall be lilrrited only by Hie lrilrety-clays per calendar year regiiirerrrent. The proposed development, as explained in the project description section of this application, is a Hotel/Lodge under the above-cited definition of the Code. In light of the foregoing, this application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Code: 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.445, Planned Development; 26.470.050, Growth Management, General Requirements; 26.470.070.8, GMQS, Lodge Development; 26.515, Parking; 26.610 Impact Fees; 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines; and 26.710.200, Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District. The applicable review standards are addressed below. A. Common Development Review Procedures and Combined Reviews Section 26.304.060.8(1) of the Code discusses combined reviews and states that, Tire procedures for reviezoiiig developllrent plans aiid applications ?Nlere More than ane (1) demlopiiimt approval is being sought sbittiltaneotisly dray be corrrbitied or iirodified zNierremr- the Corrlrritrrrity Developiwirt Director determines, iii corisidtatim with the applicant, that silch colirbillatiolt or ilrodiftcatiori zt7oidd elhiiiliate or reduce duplication acrd eiistire ecorioiriy of Brite, expetise aiid claritij; provided, liozoever, drat all prtblic iioticirrg ltoriiially associated Witlr the subject developinerit application(s) is inailitaiiied acrd that a Base] Lodge/730E Cooper rl i,e. Plalrned Devi P104?nt Page 14 VI.A. tlioroiigli and fill reviezi; of the applicatioti and proposed demloptiterrt as otlierzoise rerlirired by this Title is achieved. Consistent with Code Section 26.445.040(C)(1) and (2), since this application is seeking Planned Development approval, all associated reviews are to be combined with the PD Project Review and made part of one decision for the project as a whole. Thus, it is proposed that the associated Conceptual Conu-nerclal Design Review, the approvals associated with the required GMQS allotments, conditional use review for the restaurant and retail uses, and the separate special review approvals that would normally be required to establish off-street parking requirements, alternative methods of satisfying public amenity space requirements, and utility/trash/recycle area dimensions all be combined to instead be made part of the Planned Development Project Review and approvals. Accordingly, rather than have a Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) Resolution granting portions of the applicable approvals and a City Council Ordinance addressing the remaining parts, it is suggested that, pursuant to Code Section 26.304.060(13)(1), Combined Reviews, all final decisions be documented in a single ordinance adopted by City Council. Combining the reviews in this manner will eliminate or at least reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity. All public noticing normally associated with an application such as this will be maintained via publication, sign posting and mailing, and public outreach efforts will still be completed prior to the first public hearing. Moreover, a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development will still be achieved. B. Planned Development (PD) Review Chapter 26.445, PIanned Development, has recently replaced Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Section 26.445.010 provides the purpose of PD review and states the following: Vie purpose of Plaiuied Dezvelopntent reviezc; is to mcottrage flexibili'tp aiid inriovatiori in the development of laird uilricli: A. Proriiotes the purposes, goals aiid objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans. B. Aclt ezaes a more desirable demlopitimt ,pattern, a higher ilttalitp design acid site plaiiiibig, a greater 7)01'ietp ill the type and cliaracter of development aitd a greater coitipatibtlity zoitli existing aiid frititr'e stirrotoidtng land rises tliali zwtlld be possible tlirotigli the strict application of the Zone district provisims. C. Preserves iiattiral acid roan-iiiade site features of historic, ctiltitral or scenic valite. D. Proitiotes iitore efficient itse of laiid, piiblic facilities a)id goveriiilierital services. E. hicorporates aii appropriate level of public biptit to the plaiijibig process to ertsure sensitivity to migliborliood aiid coitriiiiiiiitp goals acid objectives. F. Promotes safe and conveideid transit, pedestrian, bicycle acrd veldcidar access and circulation. Basel Lodge1730 E. Cooper Are. Plairned DewInrn,rf,nl Page 15 P105 VI.A. G. Allou)s the developtiient of mixed laiid Uses tlirougli the mcourageitient of hmomth)e desigit practices that u)arrairt Variatiotis f viii the standard permitted zone district land uses acid diiiietisrotial requiretitetits. The development proposed in this application is very innovative and will surely achieve a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality in design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the provisions of the CL Zone District. As mentioned above, although smaller than 27,000 square feet, the Con-ununity Development Director is asked to accept this application for Planned Development review since the proposed development will advance significant conununity goals by providing affordable lodging in the downtown Aspen area. This lodge, and the associated Basel Lodge proposal, will combine to advance the significant community goals of economic sustainability and the "messy" kind of vitality that has been in almost constant decline by providing fun, affordable options for places to stay in Aspen, but it requires the flexibility of a Planned Development review in order to acconuriodate its dimensions and unique attributes. Section 26.415.050 of the Code provides the standards that must be met during Project Review of a Planned Development. These standards are enumerated below in italicized text, and each is followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. A. Coniplimice with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed demlopittertt coiiiplies u)itli applicable adopted regulatory plaiis. There are no applicable adopted regulatory plans associated with the subject property or this planned development proposal. Instead, the advisory Aspen Area Conununity Plan (AACP) provides only guidance. The proposed Basel Lodge PD is consistent with the ACCP goals and objectives relative to lodging, economic sustainability, growth management, and public transportation. B. Deaelopmeiit Suitability. The proposed Platttied Developiiretrt proldbits demloprwid on lurid irrisuitable for demlopitreut because of natural or iiiati-imde liazards affecting fire property, hicludrig flooding, iriudflozi, debris flout, fault ruptures, laiidslides, rock or soil creep, rockfalls, rock slides, ridirirrg actizaity including irriiie imste deposit, amlaitche or mou)slide areas, slopes irr excess of 30%, and aril other" iiatural or iiiati-iiiade hazard or coriditioti that could liariii the liealth, safety, or u)elfare of tine coiirrrriiiiity. Affected areas riaay be accepted as suitable for developmeiit if adequate rnitigatiou teclirriques acceptable to [lie City Etighieer are proposed ill cotiaplialice u) tli Title 29 - Eiigineeritig Design Standards. Conceptual plaiis for riritrgatioti tecliiiiques itiay be accepted for this standard. The Cihj Erigiiieer iiiay require specific designs, Basel LodgeMO E. Cooper Aie. Plfauied Dei, P106mt Page 16 VLA. )Wtigatiou tech)iiques, acid hupletwittatioii tinieli)tes be dejitted as part of the Detailed Review acrd doctutiented zvitliitt a Demloptiieitt Agreeitieitt. The property does not have nor is it affected by any natural or man-made hazards. There are likewise no hazards or conditions that could harm the health, safety or welfare of the community. The subject property is and has been developed with lodge, retail, restaurant, and cornmercial service uses for more than 40 years. The site is within the Aspen Infill area and is wholly suitable for the proposed development. C. Site Minting. Tlie site plait is coiiipatible zoith the context and visital character of the area. fit ttteeting this sta)idard, the follou)iiig criteria shall be used: 1. The site plait respotids to the sites )iatural characteristics attd physical comtrabits such as steep slopes, vegetatio)i, waterimys, a)id any iiatural or tiiatr-)trade hazards aitd allows demlopttieut to blend i)i with or ettlia)ice said features. 2. Tile project preseiv3es bliportattt geologic features, )nature vegetation, a)id structures or features of the site that have Jtistoric, cultural, visual, or ecological itnportauce or contribute to the identity of the tortuu.. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets acid are sited to reflect the neighbodiood coWext. Buildit)gs and access ways are arranged to allow effective eiitergeiicy, iiiabitma))ce, acrd service vehicle access. The proposed Site Plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. As explained in response to the previous standard, steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and natural or human -induced hazards do not affect this long -since developed property. There are no important geologic features, mature vegetation, or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or which contribute to the identity of the town; thus, there are no such features that must be preserved. The building is oriented to the public streets of both South Original Sheet and East Cooper Avenue. It has been sited to reflect the neighborhood context and the underlying CL zone district, which has no requirements for front, side or rear yard setbacks. Access will be from both of the aforementioned public streets as well as the alley at the rear of the property. In addition, a five (5) foot wide walkway that will remain open to the public is planned along the entire westerly border of the property, from Cooper Avenue to the alley. The combination of surrounding streets, sidewalks, the alley and the walkway along the westerly boundary ensure effective emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. In addition, the closure and elimination of the oversized curd cuts along both adjoining streets (one of which is State Highway 82) will improve the safety of circulation and access. D. Dimensions. All diiiiensiotts, including density, mass, and height shall be established duritig the Project Reviezo, A developt)tettt application )tray request variatio)is to arty dinreiisioiial rerluire)tieut of this Title. Iu iweti)ig this standard, cotis)derattoti shall be gi've)r to tide follortung criteria: Basel Lodge/730K Cooper Arae. Placated DeVel"limpilt Page 17 P107 VLA. 1, There exists a sigitiftcatit contmini tygoal to be achieved thiougli sitclt variations. 2. The proposed ditnetisiorrs represetit a cliar•acter suitable for acid indicative of the prittrary uses of the project. 3, The project is cotiipatible a4tlr or eidmices tiie cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the migliborliood acid sirrroundbig demloptiient patterns, iticltrdiiig the scale acid massitig of nearby Instortcal or cultiu•aI resources. 4. The tit itber of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable iiiitnber of cars to be operated by those using the proposed demlopitteiit acid Fite irature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit acid other trarisportatioti facilities, itichtdbig those for pedestrian access and/or the coitiiititmertt to utilize aritoittobile distrrceiitive teclitttrlttes in the proposed dewlopiwiit, acrd the potential for joint tise of cortiruorr parkitig pray be considered 70im establislibig a parking rerluireitiettt. 5. Tire Project Reviezi? approval, at City Couticil's discretion, imy iticditde specific allozoames for dinieiisioiial flexibility betzwen Project Reviezii and Detailed Reviezi1. Cliaiiges shall be subject to tiie aitiendtnettt proceditres of Section 26.445.110 - Artieiidiitents. As mentioned above, and throughout this application, the proposed development will help to satisfy several significant corrununity goals through the provision of long -desired affordable lodging in the downtown area of Aspen. As detailed above, in Section III, Project Description/The Proposal, the proposed dimensions are suitable for and indicative of a small lodge, and are compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns. Parking needs and demand mitigation measures are also discussed at length in Section III of this application, above. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is coirrpatible zvitlt file context and visual character of the area. In tneetirig this standard, the follortOig criteria sliadd be used: 1. The desigii complies Witli applicable desigii standards, including those otitlitied tri Chapter 26.410, Residential Desigii Standards, Chapter 26.412, Cotiiiiiercial Design Statidards, acid Cliapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible zoitli those called for iii any applicable design standards, OS Well as those typically seen iii the ininiediate vichiity. Exterior materials are friialized ditriiig Detailed Reviezia, but reviezr, boards tray set forth certain expectatiotis or coitditims related to architectural cliaracter acid exterior itiaterials dirritig Project Revieziy. The proposed development complies with the Commercial Design standards, as demonstrated in the Coirunercial Design Review section of this application, below. The Residential Design Standards and the Historic Preservation regulations are both inapplicable. The inunediate area includes a wide array and eclectic nux of exterior building materials. The predominance of the proposed structure's exterior building materials palate is exposed steel framing (both vertical and horizontal as well as infill accents set at diagonals) reminiscent of Aspen and Colorado's mining heritage. The steel beams are set above heavy concrete bases. Decorative steel pulleys, canopies and support cables provide added Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper ive. Plataied Dei, P-- 108- --'n1 Page 18 P VLA. interest and more homage to the mining history of the area. The west and north elevations are similar in composition but instead of clear glazing infilling the steel beams, these subordinate sides are in -filled with distressed metal panels. The walls of the fourth story space, between the exposed metal beams, and the elevator shaft overrun are to be covered in living green wall (vine pants). The overall feel is of an industrial, mining quality that has been modernized and reinterpreted to fit the lodge and commercial uses while being compatible with the surrounding area. For instance, surrounding structures, such as the City Market and the Aspen Art Museum reflect similar qualities. The Benedict Conunons development, behind the subject site, is something of a "mountain modern" design that seems to take certain cues from mining structures as well. The same can be said of the Hannah Dustin Office Building, whereas the adjacent Bell Mountain Townhomes are more of a heavy stone and timber, mountain dialect. Indeed, the Durant Mall, the Aspen Square, the Benedict Commons, and the Aspen Art Museum all seem somewhat reminiscent of the local mining history in varying and re -interpreted ways. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & trrtrtsit facilities. The rdeveloprnent tttrproTles pedestrian, bicycle, attrd transit facilities. These facilities atul irrrproverrterrts shall be prioritized oiler• Veldcular• facilities attd trttprovetrtents. Arty vehicular access porins, or curb cats, r11/lriiiiize ttrtpacts ort elrstitrg or proposed perdestriart, Tricycle, arid transit facilities. The City tttay regWre specific rdesigtrs, rrritigatiort teclnrirlrtes, wird irrtplentetrtation titnelbies be refuted as part of the Detailed Review artrl docrtrttertted Witltiti a Developrttettt Agreerrtettt. Access will be from South Original Street and East Cooper Avenue as well as the alley at the rear of the property. h1 addition, a five (5) foot wide walkway that will remain open to the public is planned along the entire westerly border of the property, from Cooper Avenue to the alley. The combination of surrounding streets, sidewalks, the alley and the walkway along the westerly boundary ensure effective access to and from all four sides of the development. In addition, the closure and elimination of the oversized curb cuts along both adjoining streets (one of which is State Highway 82) will improve the safety of circulation and access while resulting in five (5) new, ort -sheet parallel parking spaces (three on Original and two on Cooper). Although the proposed development does not include any off-street parking, the applicant intends to provide several exceptional and innovative Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures aimed at reducing automobile usage and dependency and minimizing traffic generation, so as to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and City as a whole. These measures are described in detail in Section III of this application, above, and in Section E., Parking, of the Review Requirements (below). G. Ertguteering Design Strtrtrlards. There ltas beets accurate irdentiftcatiort of eragirteerbig rdesigtt ward mitigation teclnrirlttes trecessary for cdeueloprttettt of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Mrtnicipal Conde Title 29 — Ertgirteerittg Design Stattrdarrds arid the City of Aspect Base Lodge1730 E. Cooper Aire. Plartltecd Dew,7-1111pnd Page 19 P109 VLA. Llrbalt Ru)ioff Ma)iageittertf Plait (LI -RMP). Tire City Eiigirteer rrtay require specific desigtis, itrrtigatroit teciiiiiques, alid ittiplelrtetrfatiolr ttltielities be defined as part of the Detailed Rezuetu and docttlnetrted Witltitt a Developltretit Agreeiwitt. Please refer to the foregoing responses as well as Section III of this application, above. It is believed that the proposed development can accommodate required engineering design and mitigation techniques. H. Public Iilfras trite ture wid Facilities. The proposed Plamied Developnetrt shall upgrade public i)iflrrstrttctrtre maul facilities necessary to serve the project. Iniprovetwids shall be at tine sole costs of tite developer. Tile City Errgiiieer t))ay retlitire specific designs, mitigation techniques, aitd ittrplenteittatioli tittrelities be defitred as part of the Detailed Reviert; and dociritietited v;itirirt a Developiireut Agreetumt. Please refer to the foregoing responses as well as Section III of this application, above. It is believed that the proposed development can accommodate required engineering design and mitigation techniques. The neighborhood and the subject property are within the Aspen Infill Area and both have been developed at an urban level for a long time. All necessary utilities and infrastructure are in place to serve the property. To the extent that upgrades, improvements or extensions are needed to any such facilities, these will be completed in accordance with applicable requirements and at the sole cost of the developer. 1. Access chid Circulation. Tire proposed develop)tie)tt shall (rave perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public imy. A proposed Planned Developiwitt shall )tot elitililiate or obstruct legal access fiviii a public Way to all adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Developtiie)rt retained mider private oit?)tersliip shall be dedicated to public rise to eiisure adegttate public aitd e)ttergeiicy access. Sectrity/privacy gates across access points aitd driveways are prohibited. Please refer to the responses provided in association with the three previous review standards. Public street and alley access is provided, there are no private streets proposed, and there will be no security/ privacy gates. Pursuant to Code Section 26.445.060, a development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone district. The proposed lodge use is permitted in the underlying CL zone district. While it could very reasonably be stated that the proposed restaurant/ retail uses on the ground floor are simply accessory to the lodge and, therefore, not "uses" unto themselves, these uses are allowed in the CL zone district (either as permitted uses or with conditional use approval). For example, retail and restaurant uses are permitted on basement and ground floors in the Cozrunercial Core Zone District and Code Section 26.710.200.B.1., provides that all uses allowed on basement and ground floors in the CC zone are permitted in the CL Zone District. As such, the fact that these uses are listed as permitted in the CC and, therefore, in the CL Zone District seems to contradict the Basel Lodge/730 K Cooper Ave. Plai?iied Deva P110'lit Page 20 VI.A. listing of retail and restaurant uses as conditional uses in the CL zone. In other words, retail and restaurant uses are listed as both permitted (by reference) and conditional uses in the CL zone district. In any event, no use variations are requested as part of this application. Instead, it is requested that the PD Project Review simply recognize all proposed uses without a separate requirement for conditional use review/ approval. C. GMQS AIlotments and Requirements Section 26.470.030.D. of the Code provides the annual development allotments and gives the lodging allotment as 112 pillows per Growth Management (GM) year. Unused and unclaimed allotments at the end of the GM year may be carried forward. As understood from conversations with Community Development Department staff, given applications for lodge units submitted to the City this year, the 2014 allotments plus those left and carried over from 2013, there are 126 pillows remaining to be allotted as of this application's writing. Another 112 pillow allotinents will become available on January 1, 2015. Code Section 26.470.040 states that the remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development is exempt from Growth Management. The existing commercial net leasable area to be demolished is greater than the conunercial net leasable area to be replaced; therefore, no commercial net leasable area allotment is necessary. There are 13 existing pillows in the Buckhorn Arms Lodge (as described earlier herein) and 92 proposed for the new Basel Lodge. Therefore, the applicant only needs 79 additional pillows for the development of this lodge (Basel). However, this application is being submitted simultaneously with a proposal for another 76 -pillow affordable lodge on the corner of Main and Monarch Streets (Base2). In total, the applicant will need a GMQS allotment of 155 pillows (79 + 76). With only 126 pillows currently available, all are requested at this time, and an additional request for 29 more pillow allotments will be submitted as a supplement to this application as soon after January 1, 2015 as practicable. Section 26.470.070 lists the types of development that require Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approval and includes the expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge. Section 26.470.070(8) includes the criteria for this P&Z review; each criterion of said Section is provided below in italicized text and immediately followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. 8. Lodge developinent. Tlie expaiision of aii exisfiiig lodge or the deaelopiwid of a iieii; lodge sliall be approved, approved with conditioiis or deiited by flee Plainiiiig and Zoiiing Cotinifissioti based on Hie folloaOig criteria: a. If the project cotitabis a iiiittiiiitttit of one (1) lodge tiiiif per fine liiindred (500) sgitare feet of lot area, Hie follort)big affordable lioiisiiig tiiitigation standards sliall ripply: Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Planned Dei-Inill-gid Page 21 Pill VI.A. 1) Affordable liotising net livable area erlttalbig a percentage, as def tied irr the nriit size table belovi, of the additional free-rrrarket resideidial riet livable area shall be ixitigated tlirotigli the provisi'oii of affordable Iroitsbig. 2) A percentage, as defined ill the table belottr, of the erriployees generated by the additional lodge, tiriiesliare lodge, exeiiipt tiiwsliare rtriits acid associated cornniercial developtiient, according to Paragrapli 26.470.100.A.1, Erriployee geiteratioit, shall be ttntigated tltroitgli the provision of affordable liortsirig... [The Table provided in the Code, as part of standard 2, above, explains that, if the average net livable area of the lodge units is 300 feet or smaller, as is the case with the proposed development, the percentage of employee generation requiring the provision of mitigation is 10%] Wlreti the average itiiit size falls betiveerr the sgttare footage categories, the retlidr"ed affordable Itonsbig shall be deterrriiiied by irrterpolatirrg the above scliednle. For exarriple, a lodge project 7t;itli air average rrrrit size of fortr litrridred fifty (450) srliiare feet shall be regttrred to provide rrnligatiori for thirty percent (30%) of the employees geiierated. Affordable lioasing nntts provided shall be approved pitrsitarrt to Paragrapli 26.470.070.4, Affordable Witsing, acid be restricted to a irtaxrrriiiiii of a Category 4 rate as defried iii the AspenlPitkin Conary Hoitsbig Aitthority Gitidelines, as airrerrded. All applicant pray choose to provide rnitigatim rrrrits at a loafer category designation. The proposed Basel Lodge includes forty (40) lodge units on a 6,927 square foot lot, which equates to one (1) lodge unit for every 173.2 square feet of lot area or nearly three times the required minimum density of lodge units to qualify. Sub -standard 1, above, is not applicable as the proposed lodge does not include any free-market residential units or such net Iivable area. Pursuant to sub -standard 2, above, and since the average net livable area of the proposed lodge units is only 174 square feet (6,949 square feet divided by 40 units), the applicant is required to mitigate just 10% of the additional full-time equivalent employees (FTE) generated. As an aside, it is noted that, if the ability to interpolate required mitigation percentages carried down to average unit sizes below 300 net livable square feet, the Basel Lodge would only need to mitigate at 5.8% of its additional FTE generation. Code Section 26.470.100(A)(1) provides the Employee Generation and Mitigation Table and states that lodges in the CL, Lodge (L), Ski Base (SKI) and other zone districts generate 0.6 employees per lodging bedroom. Note that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district are said to generate half as many employees, or just 0.3 FTE per lodging bedroom. Said Code section goes on to state that an applicant may request an employee generation review with the P&Z, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedures, and according to the following criteria. When establishing employee generation, the P&Z shall consider the following: Basel Lodge1730 B. Cooler Ave. Planned Dei' '12 ?lit Page 22 VI.A. a) The expected ettiplo fee getieration of the use cotrsideritig the etuployment generation pattern of the use or of a siniilar rise Within tine City or a sitrrilar resort ecotroirry. b) Any iodque employitient cliar•acteristics of the operation. c) 7lie extent to u7liicli eitiployees of Various uses zottlun a mixed-use building or of a related off- site operatioti will overlap or serve tniiltiple fit nctions. d) A proposed restrictiotr rerluirbig fill employee geiierntim rrirfrgation upon vacation of the type of busitiess acceptable to the Plarriiing arid Zorritig Corrnrrissiorr. e) Airy proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., air audit) to corrfrrttr actual etiiployee get ierat roti. J) For lodge projects oid y: An effrcieticy or reduction iii the riurrrber of employees required for the lodging coitiponerrf of the project cony, at the discretion of the Cotiniiissim as a meaiis of rucentivizrug a lodge project, be applied as a credit tozmrds the iiiitigattorr rerlturmietit of the free-irtarket residential corriponent of the project. Any approz,ed reductim shall require air audit to deterimiie actual etiiployee getreratim after talo (2) cotriplete years of operation of the lodge. As designed, the two ground floor conunercial spaces and their 1,674 and 1,507 square feet of net leasable area, respectively, generate 4.7 FTE for every 1,000 square feet of such space (per Code Section 26.470.100.A.1.). Thus, these 3,181 square feet of net leasable area generate 14.95 FTE (3.181 x 4.7). While the Code, at Section 26.470.100.A.1., provides that each lodge bedroom in CL zone district generates 0.6 FTE, this application proposes that it is far more appropriate to instead utilize the 0.3 FTE per lodging bedroom generation rate associated with properties in the Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay zone district, if not an even lower rate. The LP zoning is typical of Aspen's small lodges in the areas surrounding but outside of the conurtercial core and mountain base areas. The 0.6 FTE per lodge bedroom standard is applied to 4- and 5 -star lodges like the Sky Hotel, the Little Nell, the St. Regis and similar levels of accommodations where the average room sizes are usually more than double those proposed herein and where the level of service is considerably higher than will be the case in the affordable Basel Lodge. Using the far more appropriate and reasonable 0.3 FTE per lodge bedroom standard, the 40 bedrooms of the Basel Lodge will generate 12 FTE (40 x 0.3). Therefore, between the two commercial spaces and the lodging, the proposed development will generate 26.95 FTE (14.95 + 12). Given that the existing development on the subject property generates 22.47 FTE (as described in the Existing Conditions section, above), the net additional employee generation associated with the Basel Lodge development is 4.48 FTE (26.95 minus 22.47). Further, since the average net livable area of the proposed lodge units is less than 300 square feet (actually, approximately 174 net livable square feet per unit), Code Section 26.470.070(8)(x)(2) dictates that the percentage of employee generation requiring the provision of mitigation is 10%. With a total additional employee generation of 4.48 FTE, the Code, therefore, requires the provision of mitigation for 0.448 FTE. Basel Lodge1730 K Cooper Mire. Planned Devoln,-,end Page 23 P113 VI.A. As mentioned above, if the ability to interpolate required mitigation percentages carried gown to average unit sizes below 300 net livable square feet (as it does for average unit sizes above 300 net livable square feet), the Basel Lodge would only need to mitigate at 5.8% of its additional FTE generation. This would result in a requirement to provide mitigation for only 0.26 FTE (4.48 X 5.8%). It is appropriate to also consider that the Basel and Basel Lodges will share services and employees, providing econon-des of scale and unique employment characteristics of the joint operation. In other words, there will be an overlap of employees who will serve multiple functions. Finally, as provided in sub -standard "f," above, the P&Z is permitted to apply a credit towards the mitigation requirements of the free-market residential component of a lodge project, as a means of incentivizing lodge development. In the current case, the applicant is proposing no free market residential units at all; as such, it is felt that it would be fully appropriate for the P&Z to allow and apply an efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project to be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the commercial component of the project. Only a 0.448 FTE credit would be needed to bring the requirement down to zero, as requested. Based on the foregoing, in the interest of incentivizing the type of lodging being proposed herein and in the interest of keeping the cost for this lodging down, it is proposed that no employee mitigation be required for this Basel Lodge or the associated Basel Lodge at Main and Monarch. It is necessary to achieve a minimum density of roorns and beds, not just on this site but also as combined with the proposed Base2 Lodge at Main and Monarch. Accordingly, it is necessary to develop the entire parcel to achieve this critical mass, leaving no room to accommodate employee housing. In fairness, when one develops affordable housing, they are not required to mitigate it by developing affordable lodging. Likewise, it is proposed that, as an incentive for development of affordable lodging (especially without a free-market residential component to offset costs), one should not be required to mitigate the addressing of such a strong community goal by having to provide affordable housing. Consequently, it is proposed that the P&Z and City Council simply waive the requirement to provide mitigation (in the current case, for only 0.448 FTE). As required under the above standard and all GMQS reviews, Section 26.470.050(B) of the Code provides the GMQS General Requirements and states that: All developttzettt applicatiotzs forgrozz)tlt tttattagetttettt review) shall cotttply witli the follozvz`ttg standards. The teviezvittg body shrill approve, approve w tlt cottditiotts or decry atz applicatiotz for grozoth rtrattagentettt review) based ozi the folloz2}ttzg generally applicable criteria acrd the reviezn criteria applicable to the specific type of developtzzertt: 1. Strfficiettt groadli ttranagettreW allotttreitts etre available to accottrttrodate the proposed developatteW, pttrsttant to Sttbsectioat 26.470.030.D. Applicatiotrs for tzztrltt-year Basel Lodge/730E. Cooper Ai,e. Phaivied Dei'° P114'Id Page 24 VI.A. development allotntetff, pttrsttattt to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall trot be regidred to meet this standard. As stated above, there are 13 existing pillows in the Buckhorn Arms Lodge (as described earlier herein) and 92 proposed for the new Basel Lodge. Therefore, the applicant only needs 79 additional pillows for the development of thus lodge (Basel). However, this application is being submitted simultaneously with a proposal for another 76 -pillow affordable lodge on the corner of Main and Monarch Streets (Basel). In total, the applicant will need a GMQS allotinent of 155 pillows (79 + 76). With only 126 pillows currently available, all are requested at this time, and an additional request for 29 more pillow allotments will be submitted as a suppleanent to this application as soon after January 1, 2015 as practicable. 2. The proposed demlopntettt is cotttpatible alith laird uses ill the strrrouttditag area, as Well as With auy applicable adopted regulatory toaster plait. Please refer to the responses provided for similar standards under the PD Project Review section, above. 3. The development con foritts to the req itirettfetits attd lilttitatioffs of the zoite district. The proposed development largely conforms to the requirements and limitation of the CL Zone District and will fully conform to the requirements and limitations of the approved Final PD Plan. 4, The proposed developtnettt is cottsistett.t With the Conceptual Historic Preservafiott Cotttfnissiott approval, the Cottceptttal Cottrtttercial Design Reviezt) approval affil tlfe PIatttted Developmettf - Project Reviezo approval, as applicable. This standard is not applicable as the property is not subject to HPC review, and the Conceptual Connitercial Design Review and PD Project Review approvals are requested concurrent herewith. 5. Unless otheru7ise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the ettfployees generated by the additional cottttttercial or lodge demloptttettt, according to Sttbsectiott 26.470.100.A, Employee getteratiott rates, are tttitigated through the provision of affordable hottsntg. Tile erttployee getteratiott tidtigatiott plait shall be approved pttrstfatlt to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined ill the Aspett/Pitkitt Cottttty Housing Authority Gttidelhies, as atuettded. Alt applicant stay choose to provide tttitigatiott traits at a loa)er category desigttatiotr. If all applicant chooses to ttse a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as tttitigatiotf, pttrsttattt to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished ptti-sttattt to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Adtltttiistrative Exttttgttishiwid of the Certificate. Basel Lodge1730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Plcttttfed Deo-1"Iml nit Page 25 P115 VI.A. The mitigation rate for this proposal is "otherwise specified," as described and addressed above. Please refer to the narrative provided above in response to Code Section 26.470.070(8). 6. Affordable liottsirtg stet livable area, for zNdcli the jilltslied floor level is at or above natitral or flriislied grade, zi►liichever is Itiglrer, shall be provided iii aii arrioiint egital to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential rtet livable area, for zlylricli the firrislied floor level is at or above natural or fiiiislied grade, v4deliever is l6gller. Affordable lionsbig sliall be approved pirrsitant to Paragrapli 26.470,070.4, Affordable lioiising, acid be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkirr Coiaity Hoitsing Atitlioritty Giudeliiies, as arriended. An applicant rriay clioose to provide itntigation units at a loziler category designation, Affordable Iioitsing iinits tliat are being provided abseid a rerlitnelrient ("volitiitary tuiits") iitay be deed -restricted at ariy level of affordability, iriclttdirrg residential occupied. Ifaii applicant cliooses to nse a Certificate of Affordable Hottsirig Credit as relitigation, ptirsnant to Cliapter 26.540, sitcli Certificate shall be extiiigitislied piasitaid to Cliapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Adrrrrntstrative Extinguislrrrient of the Certificate, ittiliziirg Ilie calculations iii Section 26.470.100 Ernployee/Srlitare Footage Conversion. This standard is not applicable since the proposed Basel Lodge PD does not include any free-market residential units or net livable area. 7. The project represents rriiiiiiiial additional dmiarid ori piiblic iiifrastritctrire, or sitcli additional demand is iiiitigated tliroirgll itltproveitrent proposed as part of the project. Pitblic irtfiastnictnre incltides, but is riot Iirrrited to, water sripply, sezrlage treatinerrt, energy and corurliinicatiori utilities, drainage control, fire acid police protection, solid viaste disposal, parking acrd road and tratisit services. Please refer to the responses provided for similar standards under the PD Project Review section, above. D. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Section 26.412.050 of the Code provides the review criteria for Conuxiercial Design Review and states, in relevant part, that the proposed development must comply with the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the Corn-iercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The proposed development is located in the "Central Mixed Use Character Area." The design standards of Section 26.412.060, as well as the Central Mixed Use Character Area Design Review Guidelines are all enumerated below in italicized print, and each is followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. Vie follozi)ing design standards, in addition to Nie coiinriercial, lodging acid historic district design objectives and gitidelbies, shall apply to coinnrercial, lodging acrd rnixed-rise developnimt: Basel Lodge1730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Planned Dew P116 nI Page 26 VI.A. A. Public atwi ity space. Creative, a)ell-designed public places acrd setthigs contribute fo ati attractive, exclthig acid vital dort)WozOtt retail district acid a pleasaid pedestriaii shopping acid eittertaburtetit afntosphere. Public aniertity cart take the form of physical or operational iniprovettrents to public rights-of-Tllay or private property 7(trtlihi coitlrrrercial areas. On parcels required to proride public aiiienity, pursuarlt to Section 26.575.030, Public aimi7lty, the fiolloij,ing standards shall apply to the pr'oi,isior7 of such artieidty. ficceptaiice Qf the rrrethod or Coi0hiatioii Uf ilietliods of pr'oi,iditig the ptiblic arrreidty shall be at the option of the Plaiii7tng and Zoning Corrrrrrissioii or the Historic Pr'eseri�atior7 Corrrrriissior7, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and Accor dh7g to the folloit,hig stai7dards: I. The dl7)ieiislot?S of tri?y p7'OpoSeCl o11 -site ptrlillc cartel7rtJj Strffl+cl'ently alloit for a l,arietj/ of rises and activities to occur', considering ai7y expected teitaiit ai3d fittrire potential teiiaias and rises. 2. The public arnel7rty colitributes to aii active street Wfality. To accomplish this characteristic, plrblic seating, outdoor restatircatt seathig of sirrlilar active uses, shade trees, solar access, vleii, or'imlatioi7 and siirrple at -grade relatioiiships u4th acljacew rights-of-lt,ay are emottraged. 3. The public aaie,do, chid the design mid operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-lf,ay acid itses Contribute to ail hn,iting pedestrial7 enl,ir'oriillellt. 4. The proposed acme ity sloes riot duplicate existing pedestricai space created by i)ialls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplicatior7 floes not detract f#'orti the pedestrian ein,ironrrrer7t. 5. Any mtr'iation to the desigi7 road operational standards for public arireiiity, Subsectior7 2657"5.030.7., prorrrotes the pia7)ose of the public atrrenity regiriretltents. According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of --way or private property. Subsection B states that the public amenity requirement is 25%. However, for redevelopment of parcels where less than 25% currently exists, the existing percentage is the effective requirement. In its existing condition, the only portions of the property that qualify as public amenity space are the paved area in front of the building, where Johnny McGuire's maintains some seating, and the grass corner of the property where a picnic table resides. The first has a total area of 864.8 square feet and the latter is 600.3 square feet. These two spaces sum to 1,465.1 square feet, which, on this 6,927 square foot lot, equates to 21.15% public amenity space and represents the total public amenity space replacement requirement for the redevelopment. Code Section 26.575.030.0 provides the methods that may be used to satisfy the provision of public amenity and states in subsection 4 that the P&Z may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described in the Code if the Con -emission finis that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-Iieu payment. While off-site improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved to satisfy the requirement, this proposal has not Basel Lorlge1730 K Cooper Ai,e. Plaiii7ed Dei),9In7„Jrent Page 27 P117 VI.A. requested inclusion or credit for the 651.8 square feet of new parkway strips to be added between the new sidewalks and the new curb and gutters. Instead, consistent with Code Section 26.575.030.0.4., and also consistent with precedent for allowing use of outdoor restaurant decks and seating areas on private property to satisfy Public Amenity requirements, this PD proposes that similar outdoor spaces on private property, but which shall remain open to the general public, be used to not only satisfy but greatly exceed the 21.15% requirement (the proposal includes 325% of the required Public Amenity, plus the parkway strips). More specifically, the ground floor of the Basel Lodge will include a 533 square foot, open- air public amenity courtyard. The courtyard is open to the sky and accessible through the lobby area and from the five (5) foot wide walkway that will run along the entire west side of the property. In addition, an outdoor terrace is proposed on the rooftop. This terrace area will serve the guests of the lodge but also be open to the general public. The outdoor rooftop terrace includes 3,745 square feet of public amenity space. Combined with the ground level courtyard (533 square feet) and the open walkway along the west side of the property (488.63 square feet), the proposal includes a total of 4,766.63 square feet of on-site public amenity space, which equates to 68.8% of the lot area. The proposed public amenity spaces more than sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, contribute to an active street vitality, contribute to an inviting pedestrian enviroriinent, do not duplicate any existing pedestrian spaces, and greatly promote the purpose of the public amenity space requirement. B. Unlit) delivery alid trash service pr•orision. Whelz the iieeessaq logistical elerttews of a contrriercial barildhig are ii,ell designed, the buildhig carr better cowribrrte to the overcall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) bitilding caii detract fi•olra the qualify of surrounding properties. EfJicieltl delivery criid trash areas are ilrtportcnit to the liorctiorr of allepi,ays. The jolloit i ig stawlards .shall apply: 1. rl trash acid recycle service area shall be caccoiniiiodrrted ori all projects raid .shall rrreet the niinii;uoti size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid 4'aste, of the 1 iti icipal Code, unless other• Nse established according to said Chapter. 2. r1 utility area shall be accorrintodcrted ori all projects crud .shall rrreet the Irtininitrlrr stalidards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the AM, icipal code, the City's Electric Distributioii Standards, and the Nalional Electric Code, arnless othern,ise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co -located alzd combined to the greatest exlerit practical. 4. If the properly c(ljoins air allepmy, the ratililj� trash acid recycle service areas shall be along grid accessed front the alleyii,ay, unless other wise approved through Title 12, Solid Jf`aste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Revieii'. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as riot to be visible jr•oni the slreel, unless the), are entirely located ort ani alleyii,ay or othenOse approved though Title 12, Solid FYaste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26X130, Special Review. All ,fences shall be sit' (6) jeet high ftolii glade, shall be of sozrnd colistruction, aiid shall be Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper rive. Plcnirzed Dei,e Pi 18 it Page 28 VLA. no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, tininess otheni,i.se i�caried 1hr•ottgh Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b. O'henever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are regttir•ed to be provided abattting an alley, other portions of a braaldmg may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the Galley. 7. All tatility service pedestals shall be located on primate property. Easements shall alloii, for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyit,ay .shall be nninimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, stach Cas an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging brtildirngs shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley rf an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces gf the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and II as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non -ground floor commercial .shares .shall have access to an elevator or dttmbtivcaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (i,ehictdar rights -of wcay) may not be utilized as patlnvays (pedestrian rights-gf--tiva)) to meet the regWrentents of the International Building Code. Any track loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encot►raged 9. All corrtrnrercial tenant spaces located on the grotund floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the stratctatre to meet the requirements gf the International Entergy Conservation? Code as adopted and amended by the City gfAspen, or• an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be Dented through the roof. The exhaust egtaipmenrt shall be located as far away_fr•orn the street as practical. 11. Alechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally i0thin the building and/or located on the roof minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet lYall or other screening device such that it .shall not be visible front a public right-oflitwy at a pedestrian level. Neto, buildings .shall reserve adequate space for farttare ventilation and rhtcting needs. 12. The fr•ash and recycling service area r•equir•entents may be varied pursaaantt to Title 12, Solid IYaste, of the rllanicipcal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special revieiV (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery selvice area provisions). In an apparent oversight, the minimum utility/trash/recycle (U/T/R) area requirements of Code Section 12.10 do not provide a requirement specifically tailored to a lodge development with fewer than sixty (60) guest rooms and commercial spaces that will contain or have the capacity to contain an establislunent with retail food services. The 20'W x 15'D x 10'H requirement stipulated in the Dimensional Requirements Table provided in Section III hereof (above) is a intended to demonstrate a combination of the Iargest requirements for conunercial buildings and lodges, but no such actual requirement has been codified. Basel Lodge/730E Cooper Ave. Planned Dei -1.7 -gent Page 29 Pi 19 VLA. Further, while dimensions of the U/T/R area are subject to variation through special review under Code Section 12.10.080 when an applicant desires to reduce the size requirements and/or feels that the requirements cannot be met given the nature of the property, the applicant is instead proposing that the U/T/R area dimensions proposed herein, which are 15 feet wide (including an adjacent 5' wide walkway for roll-out) by 15 feet deep by at least 10 feet high (more like 13 feet high), be approved as part of the Planned Development rather than through a separate special review. Utility connections and meters can be accommodated within, or co -located with, the specified U/T/R area as well as within the various mechanical spaces included within the structure. The proposed U/T/R area is sited at grade, along and accessed via the adjoining public alleyway at the rear of the property. It has been designed such that it will not be visible from South Original Street or East Cooper Avenue. The five-foot wide walkway extending along the west property line from East Cooper Avenue to the alley will accommodate circulation to and from the U/T/R area (without the need to walk in any public rights-of-way) for all spaces and uses within the building, and will also provide access for all deliveries that are not received directly from the doorways on South Original Street. The proposed conu-nercial spaces and lodge lobby/reception area have inset doors that can easily accommodate airlocks or air curtains during winter months so as to enable compliance with the International Energy Conservation Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, which ensures such ventilation will be as far from the streets as practical. Given the design, siting and height of the proposed building, the venting and ducting equipment on the rooftop will not be visible from a public right-of-way at pedestrian level. Per the Commercial Design Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote arr interconnected circulation system that itmites pede.striarr use, hicludhig a continuoras .street curd alley .system tnrd a respect fc►r the natilral topography; • Promote a system of public places that srapport activities, includirrg prablic amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and pairing, and rurobtrusive off-street parkhig; arid • assure that brtiklings,fit together to create a vibrant street edge that relnforrces a sense of appropriate scale. The proposed development achieves the above design objectives and does so in a maim -ter that far exceeds the existing building and site's consistency with said objectives. The proposed design creates a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge by being sited lot line to lot line, which will reinforce a sense of appropriate scale that has long be absent on this corner in the Central Mixed -Use Character Area. It should be noted that this property is directly across the street from the Conunercial Character Area. In addition, please also refer to the narratives provided above in response to similar PD Project Review criteria. Basel Lodge/730K Cooper Are. Planned Denf P120 Id Page 30 VI.A. The existing character of the Central Mixed Use Character Area is explained as follows: This area is primarily rurrlti ,frurrilj, r•esiderlt al brrilclfrags ref hi,o caul three slories. The fori?l of dei,elopmettt is mried, bud has a pattern of bidNidrtal buildings on sites of two aril often three lots in ii,idth. Bitildittg height is residential in scale attd cottsegtrently loii,er than is fornrd i►,ilhitt the Cortttttercial Core Historic District. This description is clearly incorrect as it relates to the subject property and immediate environs. That is, the proposed Basel Lodge Planned Development is fully consistent with surrounding development patterns in terms of uses, densities, building heights and intensities. The property is surrounded largely by dense and busy multi -family residential and conunercial uses. There is a good deal of lodging in the area as well, including the four-story Aspen Square Condominiums lust a block away, and the three-story the Sky Hotel and the four-story Little Nell developments are within two blocks. The majority of these sites are developed from lot line to lot line or close to it and with strong street presences. To the north, across the alley, is the three -and -one half (3.5) story, high-density Benedict Commons multi -family affordable housing property (27 studio and One -bedroom units) and its sub -grade parking garage. Immediately to the west of the Benedict Conunons are the three-story multi -family Brownstones and the three-story commercial Hannah Dustin Building, which resides directly across the street from the four-plus story Aspen Art Museum. To the east and southeast, across Original Street, is a pair of three-story multi- family residential developments. This is also where Highway 82"s Independence Pass spills into town, making for a fairly busy intersection, particularly in the summer months. To the south and across Cooper Avenue is the loading dock area of the City Market. The City Market building and its surface parking lot consume the entire half block on the south side of Cooper Avenue, between Original and Spring Streets. The surface parking is framed by the three-story mixed-use Durant Mall Buildings. The five units of the three- story Bell Mountain Townhomes and its stub -grade parking garage consume the rest of the block, to the west of the subject property. A RFTA bus stop is located at the corner of Spring and Cooper, directly in front of the Bell Mountain Townhomes, conveniently serving the area with public transportation. The purpose of the Commercial Lodging (CL) Zone District is stated in Section 26.710.200(A) of the Code as follows: "to proWde fiat• the establishtrtent of tttixed-irse cottt,trercial and lodge dei,eloptnent byperiWithig cottrttrercial uses on the ground, floor ii ilh lodging dei,eloprtrettt aboue. " The proposed development will retain the existing commercial ground floor usage with lodge use above while enhancing and improving this corner property. The key design objectives in the Central Mixed -Use Character Area are as follows: Basel Lodge/730 K Cooper Elie. Platuted Det).-Ion-ettt Page 31 P121 VI.A. 1. Reflect a try►►isitioir hi character between the Coininercial Gore and the outlying residential neighborhoods. This .should occur as a nd bed of lyses, as ii,ell as hi building scale aiul landscape design. 2. Maintain a seise of front yarn with landscaping. Irl general, building setbacks should be shidlar to those seers traditionally. Hois,ei,er, some i,ar'iatiorr inay be appropriate to create variety irr scale aiid hiterest along the street. 3. Provide a sense of hinnan scale. Use architectural detail and articulated building mass to convey huincnt scale. 4. Mai►stain a visually interesting street edge. Landscal-7e, including platy materials find decoratil,e paving ]bill eiihaiice the street edge. 5. Encourage outdoor use areas. Patios and courtyards that are positioned to mrich street aciii,ity area mcouraged Those that make good use of solar access chid highlight views of'scenic_features alar larrdiilarks should be encouraged 6. Minintize visual irnpaels of parking. 0n -site parking, rf it is provided; should be screeled fi'otli street vieni� As mentioned above, this property is directly across the street from City Market, which is in the Commercial Character Area. The Conuitercial Character Area has some very different design objectives from the Central Mixed -Use Character Area, including maintaining a retail orientation, encouraging a well-defined street wall, and promoting creative, contemporary design. The proposed redevelopment of the Buckhorn Arms property meets some of the key design objectives of both Character Areas. Outlined below is each of the Conceptual Central Mixed Use Character Area Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal`s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 2.1 Developinent oii a site of tzvo or inure traditional lot widths may accoiiuiiodate additional public Walkways and through courts. These should: • Respect the setting of and avoid coiiflict u4th air adjacent historic buildilig • Design the frontage of aiiy ztialkzi7ay or th1'Oiigh COiirt With shiiilar atteiitioli to articulatioir, detail and liiaterlals accorded the priiiiary street fa�ade(s). 2.2 Public walkways and through courts shall be designed to facilitate access to arses withiii the lurk allyl/or to the rear of the site. • Locate zt)alkayays at the sidewalk level. • Locate retail fr•oiitage along Walkztiays. • Use architectural detailing to eiihatice the pedestrian experience. • Design lighting, signage aitd landscapes to Create a hiiiiiaii scale and to elihatice the pedestrian experience. An at -grade public walkway is proposed along the entire westerly property line, from the East Cooper Avenue sidewalk to the alley. Approximately half way between the Cooper Avenue frontage and the alley, this public walkway provides access to a common area Basel Lodge/730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Plarrrled Deve P122 it Page 32 VI.A. courtyard that will remain open to the public as well. The retail frontages will abut the new, detached sidewalks to be built along East Cooper Avenue and South Spring Street. 2.3 Parking shall trot be positioned betweeii the building acrd the street acrd visual impacts shall be minimized in one or snore of the following ways: • Parking shall be placed toidergrouiid zolieremr possible, • Where siti face parkbig iturst be provided, it shall be located to the real" or the hiterior of the property. • Sur face parkbig shall be externally buffered With laiidscaphig, and rntertiall y planted acid latidscaped. No parking is being proposed. Existing sheet parking will enhanced through the creation of five parallel parking spaces (three on South Original Street and two on East Cooper Avenue). 2.4 Structured parking access shall trot have a negative impact ort the character of the street. Tire access shall be: • Located ori a secondary street zt)here feasible • Designed ujith the same attetitioti to detail acid rtraterials as the prrtriary bitildhtg facade • Integrated into the building design No structured parking is proposed with this development. 2.5 PublicAinetrity Space should take the form of • Public space adjacent to the street edge • Public links through the site 2.6 A street facing aiiienity space located ori a corner or withiii the street block stray be considered. 2.7 A street facing anietiity space shall irreet all of the following rerluireinerrts: • Arit the public sideziralk • Be lez)el With the sidezilalk • Be open to tine sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherzc►ise landscaped 2.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These uiay include otie or more of the following: • Street frrrrriture • Ptiblic art • Historical/interpretive iriarker The public amenity space being proposed by this development is discussed in detail above. Base] Lodge/730 I✓. Cooper Aare. Ploiiiied Dewl—meal Page 33 P123 VI.A. 2.9 New buildnggs on a site occupybig Vlore titan two traditional lot widths ttlay Provide a Walkway or through court roithilt a single developinellt or between two developtttetits. Titis inay also extend only part way Hirougli the Parcel. 2.10 Mid -block walkways shall reinain suborditlate in scale to traditiotlal lot widths. • Mid -block public xt)alkayays shrill be bete melt S ft. and 20 ft. itl rvidtit. The proposed development is situated on a corner. A public walkway along the westerly boundary of the property will extend from the Cooper Avenue sidewalk to the alley and access a public amenity courtyard about halfway between the front and rear of the property. 2.11 The existing setback pattern witidn this area should be inaintailled. • A front yard should be provided, • Position a iters) bitildiiig to be Witilill the establislied range of froth yard set -backs. • Side yard setbacks sliould fraiiie the perittteter of a developitieW. The proposed development aligns the building at the sidewalk edge. The subject CL zone district has no front yard setback requirement. 2.12 Maintain a sense of open space arowid a building The proposed development aligns the building and sidewalk with adjacent properties. New parkway strips will be created between the new detached sidewalks and the curb and gutter to be installed for the length of both street frontages (in place of the long and somewhat continuous curb cuts in place today). 2.13 A building sllonld be oriented Perpendicular to the street frontage witllill the traditiotlal lot arrangeitlent. The proposed orientation of the building is perpendicular to the adjoining streets. 2.14 A stew building or addition sliould reflect the existing range of two to three stories. • Refer to the zone district regidatiolts to deteniiiiie the tliaxitturtli lteigltt ott the subject property. • Step back upper levels to reduce Elie perceived scale at the street edge. • Aid di��tioital lteigltt, as perttiitted tit the zone district, tttaaf be added for ossa or snare of the folloaOig reasons. - ]it order to achieve at least a trt10 foot variation its lteigltt 7tutli alt adjacent buildbig. - The prittiary ftttictiott of tate building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Mtiseutti, Civic Building, Peiforiiialice Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Soitie portion of the property is affected by a lteigltt restriction dtie to its proxbWhj to a 16storic resource, or location zi)itluii a Vim) Platte, Hterefore relief tit attotiter area !tiny be appropriate. - To beiieftt Hie livability of Affordable Housing units. - To snake a demonstrable (to be verified by the Bitildbig Deparhimit) cotitribittiott to Hie building's overall etiergy efficiency, for instance by providbig dayliglit. Basel Lodge1730 E. Cooper Ai,e. Plaiined Dei,, P124'ttt Page 34 VI.A. The proposed development is three stories, with a partial, amply setback forth floor of common and public spaces. Pursuant to the Commercial Lodge Zone District, the height allowed for third story elements is 38 feet, which can be increased to 40 feet during the Commercial Design review or higher through the PD Project Review, as is proposed herein. 2.15 The widtli of a brsilding should convey a luunarr scale. • A nein building should step dowii in Iteiglrt next to a single story historic burbling. • Maxiiinnii brtildirtg widtli sliortld be limited to three traditional lot widths (J0 ft.). There are no adjacent historic or single -story buildings. The entire site is less than three traditional lot widths. 2.16 Subdivide the mass into smaller "'modules" that convey a hi mars scale. • Multiple rrrodides car be connected to create a larger bttildirtg. The concrete piers and steel -beam framed windows at the base of the building separate the street -level elevation from the vertical mass of the building. The steel - cabled awnings at the entrance create a horizontal break between the street -level facade and the overall building mass. E. Parking With the requests made herein being combined such that City Council will have final authority over the entirety of the application, it is suggested that all parking requirements be established as part of the PD review, rather than duplicating efforts through a separate and unnecessary Special Review process. The proposed development includes forty (40) lodge rooms, which the Code says generates a requirement for twenty (20) off-street parking spaces (40 x 0.5). The 3,181 square feet of net leasable commercial space generates a need to provide 3.181 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the cumulative off-street parking requirement for the subject PD proposal would be 21.56 spaces (23.181 less the 1.622 space existing deficit; see Existing Conditions Section, above). However, the Code provides at Section 26.515.030 that, when a project has parking requirements in multiple categories (residential, commercial, lodging, etc.), the provision of on-site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use concurrently pursuant to Special Review, or as is proposed here, through approval of a Final PD Plan. Thus, the requirement for 21.56 off-street parking spaces is flexible and can be concurrently satisfied. It should also be noted that there is no parking requirement for lodges in the CC or C-1 Zone Districts, which are just half a block away (to the west). The proximity of these zones to the subject property should be considered when determining what the parking requirement for this PD will ultimately be. Basel Lodge17301;. Cooper Aiv. Planned Dei,elnnr,ient Page 35 P125 VI.A. Although the proposed development does not include any off -sheet parking spaces, the applicant intends to provide several exceptional and innovative Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures aimed at reducing automobile usage and dependency and minimizing traffic generation, so as to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and City as a whole. For example, the applicant volunteers to provide the following programs: • Encourage guests and employees to use all available means of alternative transportation to the maximum extent possible. • Ensure that, when a booking is made, the guest will be told that automobiles are not needed and will be notified of the bus systems convenience and availability as well as the lodge's proximity to downtown and free shuttle services. Based upon the experience of many Aspen Iodges, most guests do not bring or rent cars in the winter. In the summer, many guests do bring or rent cars. The opportunity for pedestrian and/or bicycle use in the summer is substantial and if proper marketing is done, a significant reduction in the number of vehicles can be accomplished. Guests arranging reservations will also be informed about the facilities, services and programs described below. • Provide bus passes to all employees who live down valley of available free service. • Ensure continuous provision of airport and local destination shuttle services via a van shuttle service to be shared between the Basel and Basel Lodges or t1wough an agreement with an existing lodge or management company that maintains such shuttle services. • The lodge will either provide bicycles or partner with WeCycle (the local bike -sharing program) to maintain a fleet of bicycles available for use by its guests. The availability of these bikes will be included in marketing materials, and guests will be informed of their availability when reservations are made and during check-in. It is anticipated that many guests will use the bikes when coupled with the shuttle service and bus system convenience, and will neither rent cars nor choose to drive in Aspen. With implementation of the above-described programs and measures, parking and transportation demand attributable to the proposed development will be substantially decreased and effectively minimized. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the lack of any lodge use parking requirement just half a block to the west, the effective creation of five (5) new on -street parking spaces through elimination of the existing curb cuts, and the desire to aid in the affordability of the proposed lodging, it is requested that the concurrent off-street parking requirement be eliminated through the PD process (incorporating special review) without a requirement for payment in -lieu. .Basel Lodge/730 K Cooper Arse. Plaiiiaed Deti}r ------ i! Page 36 VLA. As explained above, in Section III of this application, if the applicant were required to provide on-site parking and employee housing mitigation at a standard rate, the result would be an entirely different project. It would instead look like most of the "lodging" proposals the City has received in the last two decades, with less lodging and community benefits and more developer -oriented benefits. F. Impact fees Section 26.610.090 of the Code provides the established impact fees for development within the City of Aspen. The Parks Development fee is $5.45 per square foot of floor area for residential or hotel development. The Transportation Demand Management/ Air Quality impact fee is $0.61 per square foot of floor area. However, Section 26.610.100 states that a lodging development may apply for a waiver of the impact fees as an economic development incentive. Since an application for a waiver must be made and acted upon by the City Council prion to the submission of a building permit application, and retroactive waivers are not permitted, the applicant is now formally requesting a waiver of these fees. As mentioned throughout this application, the proposed development represents a type of lodging that is missing from the existing lodging inventory, and fulfills a significant community goal of providing affordable lodging in downtown Aspen. Furthermore, there is no proposed free-market residential component to help offset and/or cover the costs of developing this small, traditional, affordable lodge that will have average room sizes of just 173 net livable square feet. G. 'Transportation Impact Analysis Please see the Transportation Impact Analysis provided in Exhibit 6, and also please refer to the narratives provided above in reference to parking needs and demand mitigation. Basel Lodlge1730 E. Cooper Ave. Planned Dei-1-11»oid Page 37 P127 VI.A. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Lancs Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form, and Homeowners Association Compliance Foran; Exhibit 2: Pre -Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams; Exhibit 3: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership and Authority; Exhibit 4: Prior Approvals; Exhibit 5: Vicinity Map; Exhibit 6: Transportation Impact Analysis; Exhibit 7: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to Represent the Applicant; Exhibit 8: An Executed Application Fee Agreement; and, Exhibit 9: Mailing Addresses of Record for All Property Owners Located Within Three -hundred (300) Feet of the Subject Property P128 PIIS# 2737-182-27-904 VI.A. P129 VI.A. Z b ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION ' 1. PROJECT: Name: BASE 1 f Lodging Development Location: 730 E. Cooper Aspen, Colorado 8161 Parcel ID # 273718227004 LAND ONLY Parcel ID# 273718227904 STRUCTURES Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Lts R and S and the easterly 9.27' of Lot Q, Block 105, City5ownsite of Aspen, Cnty of Pltkin, State of Colorado APPLICANT! Namc: 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Address: 2001 N. Halsted St. Suite 304 Chicago, Illinois 60614 Phone #: 312.850.1680 RF.PRR.SFNTATIVF_ Name: Haas Land Planning Address: 420 East Main Street, Suite B-10, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-925-7819 TYPI; OF APPLICATION: (please cheek all that apply): Q GMQS Exemption fX-1 Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ® GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane RX Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Two story framed building with retail on the first level and lodging units above, positioned at the back PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Development of a 38 room lodge with accessory uses. AhAYG J"Ull naan`&I .0 aua. ❑ Pre -Application Conference Sunnnary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all wr•iften text (Microsoft Word Format) roust be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre -application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. P130 VI.A. 4 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: BASE 1 1 Lodging Development Applicant; 130 E. Cooper, LLC, a Uolorado limited liability company Location: 730 E Cooper spen, o ora o 81611 Zone District: Commercial Lodge Lot Size: x Lot Area: 6,927 s• (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area inay be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easeinents, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 4,372sf Number of residential units: Existing: ---------- Number of bedrooms: Existing: ---------- Proposed.• 3,181 sf Proposed:------------------------- Proposerl: ----------- ----- -------- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only); --- DIMENSIONS: Floor Area Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On -Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined FIR: Existing: 5,659 s.f.Allou,able: 17,317s.f. Proposed• 17,485sl Existing: 2416r Allowable: 40 Proposed.• 371611 Existing: n/a Allowable: n/a Proposer/• n/a Existing: 6 Required/.• 21.56 Pf•oposed.• 0 Exist,JJg._ n/a Rec rrirecl.- n/a Proposed: n/a Existing.- n/a Required.• n/a Proposed: n/a Existing: 55.8 Required: 0 Proposed 0 Existing; 0 Required: 0 Proposed'. 0 Existing: n/a Required: n/a Proposed • n/a Side Setback: Existing: 1.67' Side Setback: Existing: 7' Combined Sides: Existing: " " Distance Between Existing Buildings Required?- " Proposed.• u Required: 0 Proposed: 5' Required: n/a Proposed.• n/a n/a Required: n/a Proposed: n/a Existin non -conformities or encroaclunents: EN"CROACHES 2.05' REAR OF EXISTING BUILDING Variations requested: BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA P131 VLA. Homeowner All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be si ned h the proj2edy owner orAttorney representinq thePropeily owner. Name: 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Property Owner (7): Email: MHunt@MDEVCO,COM Phone No.: 312.850.1680 Address of 730 E. Cooper Property: Aspen Colorado 81611 (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. ❑ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. Evidence of approval is attached. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. understand that this document is a public document. 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: 730 E. Cooper anager Inc., a Colorado corporation Its: Manager By: Ma unt___ Date Its: President P132 VI.A. P133 VLA. CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, 429.2778 PROJECT: Buckhorn Lodge — 730 E. Cooper Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: Mark Hunt REQUEST: PD Review, Commercial Design Review, GMQS Review EXHIBIT t 2 DATE: 8.4.2014 DESCRIPTION: A prospective applicant is interested in redeveloping the Buckhorn Lodge on the corner of E. Cooper and Original. The property is described as Lots R and S and the east 9.27 square feet of Lot Q, making it a 6,927 square foot lot. The Buckhorn property was built in the 1960s as a mixed use building with commercial space on the ground floor and 9 hotellbdge units on the upper floor. Some commercial and lodge associated space existed in the basement as well, At the time, the property was zoned C-1. In the 70s and 80s, as the City went through various efforts to properly zone and locate tourist accommodations, the Buckhorn was first zoned Office (making it a non -conforming use), then Commercial Lodge (CL); a better fit. The CL rezoning included a condition that limited the property to a 1:1 floor area ratio. In 2009, the property owner received approval through City Council Ordinance 2 Series of 2009 to lift the floor area ratio limit, replacing it with a requirement that any future development be processed as a Planned Unit Development. All dimensional requirements for this site, including floor area, height, and parking, are now approved by City Council on a site specific basis through a Planned Development Review, though the CL zone district should be used as a guide for what is appropriate for the site. The prospective applicant has expressed interest in demolishing and replacing the existing structure with a lodge project that contains some commercial on the ground floor, According to Section 26.470.040, Growth Management, Exempt development, the demolition and replacement of existing commercial and hotolllodge buildings is exempt provided that no new net leasable space or lodge units are created. Prior to demolition, the Zoning Officer would confirm the existing circumstances and determine the appropriate credit. It is unclear to Planning staff if the hotel/lodge use has ceased and a Change in Use has occurred on the upper floor without proper land use approval. If applicable, existing free market residential units that were legally established are required to meet the Multi -family Replacement provision of the Land Use Code (Section 26.470.070.5). At this time, staff would establish demolition credit for the building will be based on the last legal, documented uses that were present on the property, Any expansion above the current existing not leasable commercial space or lodge units requires some form of growth management review. Affordable housing mitigation can be provided through on-site units, or through the use of Affordable Housing Certificates. Off-site affordable housing requires an additional review by City Council. The redevelopment triggers Commercial Design Review, including provision of Public Amenity space, as well as compliance with the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Neighborhood Outreach is required for this application prior to the first public hearing. A sketch -up model is required prior to Step 1. Because of the complexity of the redevelopment of this site staff.strongly suggests hiring a land use planner to assist with the land use application required pgblic outreach and public hearings, ASLO PD - Project Review 730 E. Cooper Ave, 2737.182-27-004 and 2737-182-27-904 P134 VI.A. REVIEW PROCESS: Ste 1: P&Z Review— Conceptual Commercial Design Review Growth Management Reviews Planned Development — Project Review (recommendation) City Council has an optional call-up of the Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Step 2: Council Review - Planned Development -- Project Review (Please note, a second application for Step 3 is required) Step 3: P&Z Review - Final Commercial Design Review Planned Development - Detailed Review Review Sections 26.104.100 Definitions, Hotel 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.060.B.1 Combined Reviews 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.445 Planned Development 26.470.050 Growth Management —General Requirements 26.470.070.4 GMQS- Affordable Housing 26.470.070.5 GMQS- Demolition or redevelopment of multi -family housing 26.470.070.6 Growth Management — Expansion or new commercial development 26.470.070.8 GMQS- Lodge Development 26.515 Parking 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.610 Impact Fees 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 26.710.200 Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District A link to the Land Use Code is here: htt ://www.as en itkin.com/De agments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and- Zoning/Titie-26-Land-Use-Code/ A link to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines is here: http://wmv.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlannin.q-and-Zoning/Current-Planning! A link to the Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements is here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ A link to the Land Use Application is here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlannigg-and-Zoning/Applications-and-Fees/ ASLU PD - Project Review 730 E. Cooper Ave. 2737-182-27-004 and 2737-182-27-904 2 P135 V I.A. Review By: Staff for complete application and recommendation. Development Review Commitlee for technical considerations. Planning and Zoning Commission for Conceptual Commercial Design and PD Project Review. City Council for PD Project Review. Public Hearing: P&Z for Conceptual Commercial Design Review and PD Project Review City Council for PD Project Review (Please note, a second application for Final Commercial Design Review and Final PD Review will be required) P&Z for Final Commercial Design Review and PD Detail Review Neighborhood Outreach: Yes, prior to 15f public hearing at P&Z Planning Fees: $$10,400 Deposit for 32 hours of staff time. Additional staff time is billet! at $325/hour. Referral Fees: Housing, Parks, Environmental Health @ $1,625/each Engineering at $265/hour (a 1 hour deposit is required and each hour over that is billed at $265) Total Deposit: $15,544 Total Number of Application Copies: 25 Copies; 2 full-size set of plans; electronic copy is also required To apply, submit the following information - 2 full-size set of pians; electronic copy is also required To apply, submit the following information: ❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. ❑ Pre application Conference Summary (this document). ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ASLU PD - Projekt Review 730 E. Cooper Ave. 2737-182-27-004 and 2737-182-27-904 P136 VLA. ❑ A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. ❑ HOA Compliance form (Attached) ❑ Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Recent-Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. ❑ Written responses to all review criteria. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 0 15 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. 0 Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. CI A sketch up model will be required for the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ASLU PD - project Review 730 E. Cooper Ave. 2737-182-27-004 and 2737-182-27-904 4 P137 VI.A. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Curtis R. Sanders Office Number (970) 300-0014 E-mail: csanders(ri�shermanbotitiard.coir► City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 320 NEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1557 TELEPHONE: (970) 925-6300 FAX: (970) 925-1181 OFFICES IN: DENVER - COLORADO SPRINGS - ASPEN- VAIL STEAMBOAT SPRINGS • PHOENIX • SCOTTSDALE - RENO LAS VEGAS • ST. LOUIS August 5, 2014 Re: 730 E. Cooper:-, LLC; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. C HIBIT E This letter shall confirm and certify that 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improvements located at 730 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): All improvements currently located on the Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 330, 461 and Book 79 at Page 54 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 2. Mineral and mineral rights as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 98 at Page 517, Book 125 at Page 1, Book 106 at Page 481, Book 106 at Page 482 and Book 131 at Page 81. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Net Ground Lease recorded March 13, 2000 as Reception No. 441336. 4. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Improvement Survey Plat of subject property recorded September 5, 2008 In Survey Plat Book 88 at Page 34. BUS_RE/5331592.1 P138 5. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009 by City of Aspen Council recorded April 14, 2009 as Reception No. 558000, 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Covenant Agreement in Association with Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 2 (Series of 2009) recorded April 14, 2009 as Reception No. 558001. For your convenience, a copy of the vesting deed confirming ownership of the Subject Property is attached. This letter shall filrther confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, 730 E. Cooper, LLC has the right and authority to file and pursue land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen with respect to the Subject Property. Enc. BIDS RFJ5331592.1 Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P139 VI.A. VI.A. Re—recorded to correct Grantee's name RECEPTIONH: 597991, 0312512013 at 02:28:17 Ki, 1 or d, R $26.00 DF $0.00 Doc code WD Recording Requested by: Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Curtis D. Sanders, Esq. RECEPTI()N4: 597473, 03105/203 at p Upon Recording Return to.` 04:13:15 pM, Curtis B. Sanders, Esq. i OF 4, R $26,00 tap $44.581]oc Code WD Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin Counly, co 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 l Aspen, Colorado 81611 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED THIS GENERAL WARRANTY DEED is granted as of the 54'day of March, 2013 by THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Grantor'), whose address is 730 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 to 730 E. PP?I� LLC, a *COOPER Colorado limited liability company ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is c/o Curtis B. Sanders, Esq., Sherman & Howard L.L.C., 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611. I Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and no/100 (S 10.00), and for J other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby 6) acknowledged and agreed, has sold and conveyed, and by these presents does hereby sell, grant, convey, assign, deliver and transfer unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, the following real property in Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Pro c "), to wit: All improvements currently located on the Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. TO HAVE AND HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that at the time of the enscaling and delivery of these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature whatsoever, except for those matters described below on Exhibit A attached hereto and made apart hereof (collectively, the "Permitted Exceptions') and that Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree that it shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the Property in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, subject to the permitted Exceptions. BUS—RE/5331592.1 DATE- Fiti'�Ll 46113 BU3_RV4615055.1 P140 1,;l4tTl I' END fJr1i1: �r1xF•`�E: i'l�. ,llc.�r'l�Gr�7 31 t 3 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this General Warranty Deed is executed by Grantor on the date first recited above. By: Cay: GRANTOR: :olorado limited 19 By errance McGuire, as attorney hi fact for John Ho man, Manager STATE OFQloyctkO ) ss. COUNTYOF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a day of V` \0-Y �6:-", 2013, by Mark Campisi as Manager of The Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: {\�,\ •L �J SLG 5p't*�,tARY,. Notary Public +X` G:B aus-:RFiWISMSG 1 BUS RE/5331592.1 2 12EII VI.A. VI.A. STATE OF 0) L )ss. COUNTY OF+`14t.�, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged Wore me this 41t2013, by Terrance McGuire as Manager of The Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: L,, - (L4 I PRY q�Ac ` )AI &(A. .......... Notary Public iUZ STATE OFQ-cA 0'v--U-Ckk) )ss. COUNTY OF�oac The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this COAVI day 2013, by Terrance McGuire, as attorney in fart for John Hoffman, as —Manager of The —Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 14 1 3 Notary Public % vc .......... yr'. 0 Zu60V-' BUS—RE/5331592.1 BU3—RrJ46IW5.1 MEN EXIITBIT A TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED (Permitted Exceptions) 1. Real properly taxes and assessments for the year 2013 and subsequent years 2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 330,461 and Book 79 at Page 54 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid raining claim or possession held under existing latus". 3. Mineral and mineral rights as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 98 at Page 517, Book 125 at Page 1, Book 106 at Page 481, Book 106 at Page 482 and Book 131 at Page 81. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Net Ground Lease recorded March 13, 2000 as Reception Aro, 441336. 10. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Improvement Survey Plat of subject property recorded September 5, 2008 in Survey Plat Book 88 at Page 34. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as se(forth in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009 by City of Aspen Council recorded April 14, 2009 as Reception No. 558000, 12. Terms, conditiuns, provisions and obligations as set forth in Covenant Agreement in Association Willi Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 2 (Series of 2009) recorded April 14, 2009 as Reception No. 558001. BUS W4615065_1 BUS—RE/5331592A P143 VI.A. VI■A■ RECEPTIONM 598272, 0410212013 at 04:12:34 PM, 1 OF 8, R $46.00 DF $0.00 DOC Code BILL i OF SALE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO BILL OF SALE, ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT THIS BILL OF SALE, ASSIGNMENT AND' ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as this "°Assi un�eni") is entered into to be effective as of March 5, 2013, by and between THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Assignor'), and 730 E. COOPER, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Assignee"). This Assignment is given pursuant to that certain agreement ("Purchase Agreement") captioned "CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (COMMERCIAL), dated as of November 15, 2012, Counterproposal thereto dated November 17, 2012, Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract dated December 4, 2012, Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract dated January 16, 2013, and Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract dated January 18, 2013, between Assignor and Assignee, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and covenants herein set forth, together with the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration this day paid and delivered by Assignee to Assignor, the receipt and sufficiency of all of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed by Assignor and Assignee: 1. Assignor hereby sells, transfers, assigns and conveys to Assignee, (lie followitig (the "Assigned -Assets"): a. . All right, title and interest of Assignor in and to all tangible personal property ("Personal Proper ") located on, and used in connection with The management, maintenance or operation of that certain land and improvements located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, as more particularly described as the Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen ("Real Property"), but excluding tangible personal property owned by the tenants of the Real Property under the "Tenant Leases" (as defined below). b. All right, title and interest of Assignor as lessor in and to any leases described ori Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Tenant Leases") relating to the leasing of space in the Real Property and all of the rights, interests, benefits and privileges of the Assignor thereunder, and to the extent Assignee has not received a credit therefor under the Purchase Agreement, all prepaid rents and security and other deposits held by Assignor under the Tenant Leases and not credited or returned to tenants, but subject to all terms, conditions, reservations and limitations set forth in the Tcnant Leases. b. All right, title and interest of Assignor- as lessee under that certain Net Ground Lease made and entered into March 13, 2000 between the Simon P. Kelly Trust and the Nora D. Kelly Trust both dated January 4, 1993 as landlord and Assignor as tenant in and to any and all of the rights, interests, benefits and privileges of the Assignor thereunder. C. To the extent assignable without the consent of third parties, all right, title and interest of Assignor in and to the following intangible property ("Intangible Pro ert ') owned or held solely for use in connection with the Real Property or the BUS_RE/4639697.1 1201 Personal Property or any business or businesses conducted thereon or with the use thereof (other than those businesses conducted by. the tenants of the Real Property under the Tenant Leases): contracts and agreements, building and trade names, business licenses, warranties, utility contracts, plans and specifications, govertrtttental permits, approvals and development rights, to the extent related solely to the Real Property or the Personal Property or any part thereof. 2. Assignee hereby accepts the assignment by Assignor to Assignee of all Assignor's right, title, and interest whatsoever in and to the Assigned Assets. Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to keep, perform, and fulfill all of the terms, covenants, obligations, and conditions of the Assigned Assets on the part of Assignor required to be performed, from and after the date hereof (but -tot those required to be performed prior thereto), in accordance with the terms of the Assigned Assets and the laws of the State of Colorado. 1 Assignee hereby agrees to indemnitT, defend, and hold Assignor harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of actions, liabilities, lasses, damages, judgments, costs, liens (including but not limited to mechanics' and judgment liens), and expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of (i) the Assigned Assets, including out of any breach of or default in Assignee's obligations under the Assigned Assets, arising from and after the date hereof, or (ii) Assignee's obligations hereunder. 4. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold Assignee harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of actions, liabilities, losses, damages, judgments, costs, liens (including but not limited to mechanics' and judgment liens), and expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of (i) the Assigned Assets, including out of any breach of or default in Assignor's obligations Linder the Assigned Assets, arising prior to the date hereof, or (ii) Assignor's obligations hereunder. 5. Assignor agrees to cooperate fiilly with Assignee in effecting any such transfers, to the extent Assignor's cooperation is necessary or required by the persons or agencies issuing such items or otherwise having the power to consent to such assignment; provided, that Assignor shall not be obligated to incur any additional costs or liabilities in connection therewith. Assignor agrees that it will, upon Assignee's request, execute and deliver such further assignments, bills of sale, and other documents of transfer as may be requested by Assignee, and to perform such other acts, promptly upon request, as Assignee requests from time to time and which are, in Assignee's reasonable judgment, necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Assignnteatt; provided, that Assignor shall not be obligated to incur any additional costs or liabilities in connection therewith. 6. The property conveyed hereunder is conveyed by Assignor and accepted by Assignee AS IS, WHERE IS, AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IT BEING THE INTENTION OF ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE EXPRESSLY TO NEGATE AND EXCLUDE ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OT MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WARRANTIES CREATED BY ANY AFFUZMATION OF FACT OR PROMISE AUS-RE/4639697.1 P145 VI.A. VI.A. 7. This Assignment may be executed in one or more identical counterparts, each of which such counterpart shall be deemed an original for all purposes and all such counterparts collectively consisting of one such Assignment. HUS RE14639697_1 (signature page follow s) P146 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Assignment as of March 5, 2013. ASSIGNOR: O'TI-TE C ORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado l ity co;ager 'any By: Mark Campisi, By: Terrance McGuire, Manager By: - Terrance McGuire, as attorney in fact for John S. Hoffman, III, Manager LE a13S RE/46396971 ASSIGNEE: 730 E. COOPER, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Mark Hunt, Manager 12EH VI.A. VI.A. IN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this :Assigranent as of March S, 2013. BUS RFJ46514 i5J M- M- 0 ASSIGNOR: THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company . Mark Campisi, Manager Texxance McGuire, Manager Terrance McGuire, as attorney in fact for fohn S. Hoffman, III, Manager ASSIGNEE: 730 E. COOPER, LLC, a 'blorado limited liability company Mark Hunt, Manager ll i VI.A. STATEOF e0lQrra(,fta ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c clay of /1'12 t, , 2013, by Mark Campisi as Manager of The Buckhhorn Areas, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Witness my hand and official seal � My commission expires: /� 1 (0 4+rG� ? X�OTAR Y Notary Publi 9 circ yo STATE OF Go l g v- rx C e z) s5. COUNTY OF r nc The foregoing instiunient was acknowledged before nae this c; �? —day of 'YIL-f'=C-�, 2013, by Terrance McGuire as Manager of '-floe Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 0TARY J'�c'l Notary Public..a�+c STATEOF L7 b (O r c z_ ct O) ) ss. COUNTY OF r "Ice The -foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `clay of ��1'l•tt tit l~, 2013, by Terrance McGuire, as attorney in fact for Johia Hoffinan, as Manager of The Buckhom Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. f%`c kil(q p%'•� ` Witness my hand and official seal. r VIOTARY •' ;, My commission expires: it Notary Public SUS_RPJ9639697.1 P149 V I.A. STATE OF I �' ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of . _, 2013, by Mark Hunt, as Manager of 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liabi[ity company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: VIZI-7 HUS RFJ4651475.1 Notary Public P150 OFFICIAL SEAL NANCY TUMEN Notary Public • State of Winds - My eommisslon Expires Apr t, 2017 SCHEDULE "A" LIST OF TENANT LEASES 1. Lease Agreement dated November 15, 2012 between Assignor as landlord and Zoe Fink and Matt Batel as tenants providing for the lease of Unit 321. 2. Lease Agreement dated February 1, 2013 between Assignor as landlord and Johimy McGuire's Deli, Inc. as tenant providing for the lease of Unit 322. 3. Lease Agreement dated February 1, 2013 between Assignor as landlord and Roy "Toomey as tenant providing for the lease of Unit 323. 4, Conunercial Lease Agreement dated October 1, 2008, together with Lease Extension Agreement dated October 1, 2009 and Commercial Lease Amendment dated February 1, 2013 between Assignor as landlord and Sannny Hewins as tenant providing for the lease of "ground level space between Johnny McGuire's and Dominos Pizza", 5. Commercial Lease Agreement dated September 1, 2011, together with Commercial Lease Amendment dated February 1, 2013 between Assignor as landlord and Colorado Medical Marijuana Supply, Inc. as tenant providing for the lease of a portion of the Real Property currently occupied by tenant. 6. Commercial Lease Agreement dated January 1, 2012, together with Conunercial Lease Amendment dated November 30, 2012 and Conunereial Lease Amendment dated February 13, 2013 providing for the lease of "ground level space between Johnny McGuire's and Dominos Pizza". 7. Retail Lease Agreement dated August 1, 1009, together with that certain First Amendment to Retail Lease Agreement dated March 5, 2013, between Assignor as landlord and Summit Pizza, Inc. as tenant providing for the lease of the space currently occupied by Summit Pizza, Inc. and containing approximately 1,100 square feet of floor area. 8. Retail Lease Agreement dated August 1, 1009, together with that certain First Amendment to Retail Lease Agreement dated March 5, 2013, between Assignor as landlord and Johnny McGuire's Deli, Inc. as tenant providing for the lease of the space currently occupied by Johnny McGuire's Deli, Inc. and containing approximately 1,200 square feet of floor area. BUS__REf4639697.1 P151 VI.A. V I.A. NET GROUND LEASE THIS NET GROUND LEASE (the "Lease")'made and entered into this I" day of March, 2000, between THE SIMON P. KELLY TRUST and THE NORA D. KELLY TRUST both dated January 4, 1993, whose address is: P.O. Box 1583, Aspen, Colorado 81612 ("Landlord"), and THE BUCKHORN ARMS LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is: 732 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 ("Tenant"). It is the purpose and intent of the Landlord and Tenant that the rent, hereinabove provided to be paid to the Landlord by the Tenant, be absolutely net to Landlord, so that this Lease shall, except as hereinafter provided to the contrary, yield net to Landlord the rent, as hereinabove provided, to be paid in each year during the term of this Lease in equal monthly installments adjusted from time to time, and that all costs, expenses, and obligations of every kind or nature, whatsoever, relating to the Leased Premises, or any improvements thereon, which may arise or become due during the term of this Lease, shalt be paid by the Tenant and that the Landlord shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Tenant from and against the same. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the Tenant to pay or discharge any liens or mortgages of any character whatever which may hereafter be placed upon the Leased Premises by the affirmative act of the Landlord. WITNESSETH: ARTICLE I Leased Premises The Landlord hereby leases to the Tenant, and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the land described as Lots R, S and the East 9.27 feet of Lot Q, in Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado ("Leased Premises"). This Lease does not include any of the improvements situated on the Lease Premises ("Improvements"), the absolute ownership of the same having been transferred by the Landlord to the Tenant contemporaneously herewith.. ARTICLE II Term The term of this Lease shall commence on March, 2000, and expire on March, 2099. The term "Lease Year" as used herein shall mean each succedding twelve (12) month period during the term hereof. P152 VI.A. ARTICLE IIx Rent 1. The Tenant agrees to pay the Landlord an annual rental for the first Lease Year during the term of the Lease of $114,000.00. This rental is payable in equal monthly installments ("minimum monthly rental") of $9,500.00, due on the first day of each calendar month during the term hereof without prior demand. Said rent shall be payable at the Landlord's address set forth above or at such other address as the Landlord shall direct in writing. 2. Commencing on the first (Ps anniversary hereof and on each subsequent anniversary hereof, and thereafter teach an "Adjustment Period") during die term of this Lease, the annual rental for each Lease Year shall be adjusted for the period between those anniversaries based upon increases or decreases (if any) in the cost of living during the preceding Lease Year period using the "Price Index", all as more particularly described below. 3. "Price Index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) - Denver Average - All Items, or a successor or substitute index published or authorized by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 4. The following are the Adjustment Periods, base index, and current index numbers to be applied in determining rent increases for each Lease Year following the first (V5 year of this Lease: By way of example, the First Adjustment Period is the period from the first (1') anniversary of the Lease to the second (21) anniversary of the Lease. Index Number at Last Month of First Year of Lease Q X Annual Rental for the Fust — Annual Rental for First Adjustment Period Year of the Lease Index Number at Commencement of Lease For each Adjustment Period after the First Adjustment Period the Current Index Number shall be the Price Index for the last month of the current Adjustment Period, and the Base Index Plumber shall be the Price Index for last month the immediately preceding Adjustment Period. 5. As promptly as practicable after the commencement of the First Adjustment Period, and thereafter as promptly as practicable after the first day of each succeeding Adjustment Period, Landlord shall compute the increase or decrease, if any, in the cost of living for Page 2 P153 V I.A. the twelve months immediately preceding said Adjustment Period. Such computation shall be made by use of Current and Base Index Numbers provided for each Adjustment Period as set forth in Paragraph 4 above. 6. In computing increases for each Adjustment Period, the Current Index Number shall be divided by the Base Index Number. From the quotient thereof, there shall be subtracted the integer 1, any resulting positive number shall be deemed to be the percentage of increase in cost of living, and any resulting negative number shall be deemed to be the percentage of decrease in the cost of living. 7. The percentage of increase or decrease in the cost of living shall be multiplied by the annual rental including increases or decreases for the ycar preceding the Adjustment Period for which the increase or decrease is being computed. The Landlord shall, within a reasonable time after obtaining the appropriate data necessary for computing such increases or decreases, give the Tenant notice of any increase or decrease so determined, and the Landlord's computation thereof shall be conclusive and binding, but shall not preclude any adjustment of the index figures upon which the computation was based if Tenant shall, within sixty (60) days after the receiving .of such notice, notify the Landlord of any claimed error therein; provided, however, nothing herein shall be construed to extend the time as provided in Section 10 below when rents as determined by Landlord are due and payable by Tenant. 9. Annual rent for each Adjustment Period together with increases or decreases calculated in accordance with Sections 2 through S of this Article III shall be due and payable to Landlord in equal monthly installments due on the first day of each calendar month of each Adjustment Period (retroactive payments then due being payable within five (5) days after giving notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant) at the address set forth in Section 3 of the Summary, 10. If publication of the pertinent Consumer Price Index shall be discontinued, the parties hereto shall thereafter accept comparable statistics on the cost of living in all U.S. City Average -All Items, as the same shall be computed and published by an agency of the United States or by a responsible financial periodical of recognized authority then to be selected by the parties hereto. In the event (1) use of the comparable statistics in place of the Consumer Price Index as above mentioned, or (2) publication of the Index figures at other than bi-monthly intervals, there shall be made in the method of computation above provided revisions as the circumstances may require to carry you the intent of this Article. 11. If the Tenant fails to pay an installment of the minimum rent by the 10th day of the month of which it is due, Tenant must add an amount equal to two and one-half (2.5 %) of such installment to that installment as additional rent. Page 3 P154 - VI.A. ARTICLE N Maintenance of Land The Tenant shall at its expense maintain the Leased Premises and aprovements thereon in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations and recorded covenants, conditions or restrictions relating to the Premises. ARTICLE V General Property Taxes; Tax on Rents For each Lease Year, the Tenant shall pay to the Landlord the Landlord's general property taxes (as hereinafter defined) on the Leased Premises as and when the same shall be due. The term "general property taxes" as used herein shall mean governmental or quasi -governmental ad valorem taxes, assessments, levies and charges, general or special, upon the Lease Premises and any and all Improvements situated thereon. As promptly as possible following receipt by Landlord of its tax statement on the Leased Premises for the preceding Lease Year, a copy of the same shall be sent to the Tenant together with a statement of any deficiency in the total share paid by Tenant during the preceding Lease Year and of any increase in Tenant's obligation which may be necessitated by said tax notice. In case of any deficiency for any preceding Lease Year or the current real estate taxes for the Leased Premises, Tenant shall pay the same in the full amount of all real state taxes within thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of the subject statement by Landlord. In addition, the Tenant shall pay on or prior to the due date thereof, any tax or rents which may be imposed or levied on any party hereto in connection with the payment or receipt of rents for the occupancy of the Leased Premises. The foregoing shall not be construed to create an obligation on the Tenant to pay Landlord's regular state and federal income tax obligations occasioned by rent paid under this Lease. ARTICLE VI Fire and Casualty Insurance Fire and Extended Coverage. The Tenant shall insure the Improvements against fire, normal extended coverage perils, vandalism and malicious mischief to the amount of the full insurable replacement value thereof. 2. Waiver of Subrogation. Both the Landlord and the Tenant waive any right of subrogation which their respective insurors may acquire against either of them. Both of these waivers shall automatically terminate at such time as either party's insuror requires that an additional premium be paid as a consequence of this waiver provision. Page 4 P155 V I.A. ARTICLE 'VII Utilities Tenant shall be responsible for, and agrees to promptly pay for, all charges for electricity, natural gas, telephone and any other utilities furnished to the Leased Premises, and shall indemnify Landlord and hold Landlord harmless from and against any liability or charges on account thereof. In the event any such utility charges are not paid by Tenant when due, Landlord may at Landlord's sole option pay the same to the utility company or department furnishing the same, and any amount so paid by Landlord shall become additional rent due and payable by Tenant on the first day of the month following the month in which Landlord made such payment. With regard to all utilities, it is mutually agreed that Landlord shall not be liable in damages or otherwise for any interruption or failure thereof. ARTICLE VIII Parkin Landlord shall have no responsibility for enforcement of Tenant's parking rights and the Tenant shall be solely responsible therefor, If the Tenant's use of the Leased Premises results in the Landlord's being required by any governmental agency to provide additional parking spaces or pay a parking assessment, or if for any reason a parking assessment shall be applied to the Leased Premises, the Tenant shall pay or be charged for the provision of these spaces in accordance with such use. ARTICLE IX Landlord's Right to Subordinate This Lease may, at Landlord's option, be subject and subordinate to the lien of any trust deed or deeds, mortgages, or liens resulting from any other method of financing or refinancing here before or hereafter placed upon the Leased Premises, and to all other amounts advanced thereunder or consolidations and extensions thereof; provided, however that in the event of any foreclosure or other suit, sale or proceeding thereunder, Tenant, if not then in default hereunder will not be made a party to any such suit or proceeding, and the same shall not affect the rights of the Tenant under this Lease. Tenant agrees to execute such instruments as may reasonably be requested by any beneficiary or mortgagee to evidence and make a record of the fact that this Lease is to be inferior to any such deed of trust or mortgage. Page 5 P156 VI.A. ARTICLE X Tenant Agrees 1. Payment of Rent. To pay rent promptly in advance as herein provided, to the address of Landlord shown above or as hereafter designated in writing by Landlord. 2. Maintenance of Leased Premises and Improvements. Tenant, having examined the Leased Premises, is familiar with the condition thereof, and relying solely on such examination, will take them in their present condition "as is" with all of its faults. Tenant shall at all times maintain the Leased Premises in good condition and state of repair and shall, at the Tenant's own cost and expense, make all necessary repairs thereto, and at the end or other expiration of the term hereof, shall deliver up the Leased Premises in good condition and order, wear and tear from a reasonable use thereof and damage by the elements not result- ing from the neglect or fault of the Tenant excepted. 3. Illegal Use Prohibited. Not to use the Leased Premises or let them be used for any purpose contrary to applicable law, ordinance or regulation. 4. Hazardous Materials. Not introduce, store or install on the Leased Premises or Improvements any hazardous waste materials as defined in any Federal, State or local law, rule or regulation. ARTICLE XI Additions and Alterations Tenant shall have the right to make or permit to be made alterations, additions or changes to the Improvements and Leased Premises without the Landlord's prior written consent. All work with respect to alterations, additions and changes shall be done at Tenant's sole expense in good and workmanlike manner. The Tenant agrees to and shall save, hold and keep harmless and indemnify the Landlord and the Leased Premises from and against any mechanic's liens and claims whatsoever, of any nature and based on any theory of law arising from the improvements, any alterations, improvements and/or additions so made by the Tenant. Upon a termination of this Lease as a result of default by the Tenant or expiration of the term hereof, unless otherwise agreed to by the Landlord in writing, or as otherwise hereinafter provided, all or any part of the Improvements, and any and all alterations, additions or changes may be considered as improvements which shall not be removable by Tenant, but shall become a part of the Leased Premises; and, in such event, Tenant shall not have the right to remove the same. Any improvements, alterations, additions or changes shall be made strictly in accordance with all ordinances, building codes and regulations relating thereto, and all required permits therefor obtained prior to the commencement of construction. Page 6 P157 V I.A. ARTICLE XII Condition of Leased Premises The Landlord agrees to deliver to the Tenant the Leased Premises only in their present condition. The Landlord represents that they are unaware, without any duty of inquiry conditions, defects, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, or building code violations present or currently existing with respect to the Leased Premises. However, the Landlord agrees to a $12,540 credit against rent to be spread equally over the first six (6) months of the term of the Lease to offset the costs of roof repair/replacement of the roof of the building on the Improvements (owned by the Tenant), sealing of the parking lot on the Leased Premises (as shown on the sketch attached hereto as Exhibit "A" of an old utility box on the Leased Premises which is no longer used. Such removal shall be. arranged by the Tenant and the Tenant may deduct the cost of such removal from an installment of rent at the time the removal shall have occurred, not to exceed $2,500. ,ARTICLE XIII Landlord's Interest Not Subject to Mechanics' Liens 1. Tenant Cannot Permit Mechanics Liens. All persons to whom these presents may come are put on notice of the fact that the Tenant shall never, under any circumstances, have the power to subject the interest of the Landlord in the Leased Premises to any mechanics' or materialmen's liens or lien of any kind, unless a specific provision to the contrary authorizing in specific terms the creation of such lien or liens, is elsewhere herein contained. 2. Posting of Premises. The Tenant shall post and maintain the notice permitted by §38-22- 105, C.R.S. at all places within or upon the Leased Premises where work shall be undertaken which might give rise to a claim for a mechanic's lien. 3. Procedure Regarding Mechanic's Liens. The Tenant covenants and agrees with the Landlord that the Tenant will not permit or suffer to be filed or claimed against the interest of the Landlord in the Leased Premises during the continuance of this Lease, any lien or claim of any kind, and if such lien be claimed or filed, it shall be the duty of the Tenant within thirty (30) days after the Landlord shall have been given written notice of such a claim having been filed among the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, or within thirty (30) days after the Landlord shall have been given written notice of such claim and shall have transmitted written notice of the receipt of such claim unto the Tenant (whichever 30 day period expires earlier) to cause the premises to be released from such claim, either by payment or by the posting of bond or by the payment unto the court of the amount necessary to relieve and release the premises from such claim, or in any other manner which, as a matter of law, will result, within such period of thirty (30) days, in releasing Page 7 P158 VI.A. the Landlord and the title of the Landlord from such claim; and the Tenant covenants and agrees, within such period of thirty (30) days, so as to cause the premises and the Landlord's interest therein to be released from the legal effect of such claim. Respectively such notice and the consequent reply are deposited in the United States Mails, with sufficient postage prepaid thereon to carry them to their addressed destinations and they shall be addressed to the Landlord and the Tenant at the places and in the manner prescribed as being the places and the manner for giving notice. 4. If the Tenant's interest in and to this Lease Agreement is assigned, the Tenant's liability for the performance of any of the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements contained herein to be performed by the Tenant, shall remain in full force and effect. AR'T'ICLE XIV Encumberance of Tenant's Leasehold Interest At any time and from time to time, Tenant may freely mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber its interest in this Lease, the Leased Premises, any improvements constructed on the Premises, or in any part thereof. Any such mortgage, pledge or other encumbrance on such interest is referred to herein as a "Leasehold Mortgage .°' No Leasehold Mortgage shall at any time be a lien on the Leased Premises unless such lien is expressly granted by Landlord. 2. Rights of Leasehold Mortgagee. Except as specifically set forth in this Lease, no holder of any mortgage, pledge or other encumbrance of this Lease or of Tenant's interest hereunder (a "Leasehold Mortgagee"), ), or anyone claiming by, through or under such mortgage, pledge or other encumbrance, shall, by virtue thereof, acquire any greater rights hereunder than Tenant has hereunder and no mortgage or pledge of this Lease or of any interest hereunder by Tenant, or Tenant's successors or assigns, shall be valid, unless such mortgage or pledge shall be subject to all the agreements, terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease. Rights of Leasehold Mortagee to Cure. A Leasehold Mortgagee may give notice to Landlord, specifying the name and address of such Leasehold Mortgagee, and if such notice shall be given, Landlord shall give to such Leasehold Mortgagee notice of any and all defaults and nonperformances hereunder not later than the first to occur of (i) the time such notice is given to Tenant, and (ii) the time of the declaration of any default, or the exercise of any remedy hereunder, addressed to such Leasehold Mortgagee at its address last furnished to Landlord. No such notice by Landlord to Tenant hereunder shall be deemed to have been duly given unless and until a copy thereof has been delivered in accordance with the notice provisions hereof, to such Leasehold Mortgagee.of which Landlord has been notified in accordance with the provisions ofthis Section. Such Leasehold Mortgagee, after delivery of such notice from Landlord to Leasehold Mortgagee that Tenant's applicable cure Page S P159 VI.A. period has expired (the "Landlord's Notice"), shall thereupon have aperiod of 20 more days in the case of any default in the payment of money, and 45 more days in the case of any other default, than is given Tenant with respect to such default after delivery of the Landlord's Notice to it, for remedying the default or causing the same to be remedied. Such Leasehold Mortgagee, in case Tenant shall be in default hereunder, shall within the period and otherwise as herein provided, have the right to remedy such default, or cause the same to be remedied. Landlord shall accept performance by any such Leasehold Mortgagee within the aforesaid period of any covenant, condition, or agreement on Tenant's part to be performed hereunder with the same force and effect as though performed by Tenant. Landlord shall not exercise any right or remedy with respect to any Event of Default in respect of the performance of work required to be performed, or acts to be done, or conditions to be remedied so long as such Leasehold Mortgagee shall, in good faith, have commenced promptly to rectify the same and shall thereafter prosecute the sat-ne to completion with diligence and continuity; provided, however, that al l such defaults are cured within 20 days, or 30 days, as applicable, from the date of delivery of Landlord's Notice or, if such non - monetary default is not reasonably curable within such 30 -day period, the Leasehold Mortgagee shall contactLandlord to effect a cure and shall commence and diligently pursue a curewithin 30 days ofthe date of delivery of Landlord's Notice and shall diligently pursue such cure thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the period of time given to the Leasehold Mortgagee to cure any default by Tenant which reasonably requires. that said Leasehold Mortgagee be in possession of the Premises to do so, shall be deemed extended to includethe period oftime reasonably required by said LeaseholdMortgageeto obtain such possession (by foreclosure or otherwise) with due diligence; provided, however, that during such period all other obligations of Tenant under this Lease which can be reasonably performed by the Leasehold Mortgagee, including payment of Rent, are being duly performed. No Leasehold Mortgagee shall become liable under the provisions of this Lease unless and until such time as it becomes the owner of the leasehold estate covered by its mortgage, and then only for obligations arising during the time it is the owner of such leasehold estate; provided, however, that the preceding portion of this sentence shall not limit or restrict in any way Landlord's authority to terminate this Lease, as against any Leasehold Mortgagee (subject to the provisions of this Section) if any default hereunderwhich can be reasonably cured by the Leasehold Mortgage including, without limitation, any default in the payment of Rent) has not been completely cured within the time periods specified herein. From and after receiving notice from Tenant or any Leaschold Mortgagee as to the existence of a Leasehold Mortgage as provided for in the first sentence of this Section, Landlord will not cancel, surrender, modify or amend the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease without the prior written consent of the Leasehold Mortgagee, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 4. In case of termination of this Lease by reason of the happening of an Event of Default, Landlord shall give notice thereof simultaneously to each Leasehold Mortgagee who shall be entitled to receive notices of default as provided in Section 3 hereof above, whichnotice shall be addressed to each Lcasehold Mortgagee at the address lastfurnished to Landlord as Page 9 P160 VI.A. provided in such Section 14.3. Provided that the Lease was terminated as a result of an Event of Default which was personal to Tenant and therefore not curable by the Leasehold Mortgagee, if any such Leasehold Mortgagee notifies Landlord in writing, within 60 days after the giving of such notice of termination by Landlord as aforesaid, that it desires to enter into a new lease, Landlord shall execute and deliver such new lease to the First Leasehold Mortgagee who timely requested such a new lease in respect of the Premises or Leasehold estate which shall have been covered by the lien of the mortgage held by such Leasehold Mortgagee, for the remainder of the term of this Lease, at the rent and other charges herein reserved and upon the covenants, conditions, limitations and agreements herein contained, provided that such Leasehold Mortgagee shall have paid to Landlord all Rent and other charges due under this Lease, up to and including the date of the commencement of the term of such new lease. The term "First Leasehold Mortgagee" as used in this Lease shall mean the Leasehold Mortgagee or Leasehold Mortgagces holding the most senior lien on the interest of Tenant under this Lease or any portion thereof, as consolidated, renewed, extended, modified or replaced from time to time. In the event the First Leasehold Mortgagee elects not to enter into a new lease, Landlord shall enter into such lease with any other Leasehold Mortgagee who so elects, in the order of priority of the Leasehold Mortgages, or as the other Leasehold Mortgagees may agree. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to impose any obligation on thepart of Landlord to deliver physical possession ofthePremises or any part thereof to such Leaseh©ld Mortgagee, provided, however, that Landlord shall cooperate with such Leasehold Mortgagee (by joining as a party in any appropriate action or proceeding, or otherwise) at the sole cost and expense of such Leasehold Mortgagee, and at no cost, expense or liability to Landlord, for the purpose of enabling such Leasehold Mortgagee to obtain such possession of the Premises. The Leasehold Mortgagee shall not be required to cure any Event of Default which is exclusively personal to Tenant and which therefore no Leasehold Mortgagee has the power to cure (such as, for example, the bankruptcy of Tenant), as a prerequisite to the exercise of the rights granted to such Leasehold Mortgagee by the provisions of this Section. Except as aforesaid, such Leasehold Mortgagee shall remedy all other Events of Default which can be reasonably remedied. Any such new lease and the leasehold estate thereby created shall continue to maintain the same priority as this Lease with regard to any mortgage on the Premises or any part thereof or any other lien, charge or encumbrance thereon caused or made by Landlord whether or not the same shall then be in existence, The provisions of the preceding sentence are intended to be self-executing, and Landlord shall not be obligated to expend any funds or take any other action (other than to execute any documents reasonably required by any title company, at no expense to Landlord) to accomplish or obtain such priority for any such new lease or leasehold estate. Page 10 P161 VI.A. ARTICLE XV Assignment and Subleasing Assignment Permitted, This Lease is freely assignable, but no assignment or transfer shall be valid unless the assignee shall expressly assume and agree to perform each and every of the covenants of this Lease which, by the terms hereof, the Tenant agrees to keep and perform, which assumption shall be evidenced by written instrument (either by joinder in the assignment itself, or by separate instrument), executed in such fashion as to entitle it to recording, nor shall such assignment be deemed valid, unless the assignment and assumption agreement are promptly filed for record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and an executed original thereof delivered to the Landlord. 2. Subleasing. The Tenant may freely sublease portions of the Leased Premises. Each such sublease shall be in writing and shall be expressly made subject and subordinate to this Lease. 3. Estoppel Certificates. Each party (Landlord and Tenant) hereby covenants and agrees with the other that such side will, within twenty (20) days after written notice shall have been given that side by the other, requiring a statement of the status of the Lease, give such statement in writing and truthfully, so as to show whether the Lease is in good standing, and, if it is not, the particulars in which it is not, and failure within such period of twenty (20) days so to give such written reply, shall constitute a representation that the Lease is in good standing, which representation any person, within twenty (20) days after the expiration of said 20 day period, may rely upon as being true and correct. ARTICLE XVI Liability Insurance The Tenant, at Tenant's own cost and expense, shall provide and keep in full force for the benefit of the Tenant and the Landlord (as named or additional insured) during the term hereof or any extension or renewal period, general public liability insurance, insuring against any and all liability, or claims of liability arising out of, occasioned by or resulting from an accident on or otherwise in or about the Leased Premises and Improvements, for injuries to any person or persons, for limits of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) for injuries to one person and One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for injuries to more than one person, in any one accident or occurrence, and for loss or damage to the property.of any person or persons, for not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). The policy or policies of insurance (or certificate of insurance therefor), shall be issued by a company or companies authorize to do Page 11 P162 VI.A. business in this State and copies thereof shall be delivered to the Landlord together with evidence of the payment of the premiums thereof, prior to the commencement of the term hereof. The Tenant also agrees to and shall save, hold and keep harmless and indemnify the Landlord, from and against any and all payments, expenses, costs, attorney's fees and from and against any and all claims and liability for losses or damage to property or injuries to person occasioned wholly or in part by or resulting from any acts or omissions by the Tenant or the Tenant's agents, employees, guests, licensees, invitees, subtenants, assignees or successors, or for any cause or reason whatsoever arising out of or by reason of the occupancy by the Tenant or its sublessee. ARTICLE XVII Holding Over If the Tenant shall, with the knowledge and consent of the Landlord, continue to occupy the Leased Premises after the expiration of the term of this Lease, the Tenant shall become for such extension period a Tenant from month to month on the same terms as herein stipulated for the last month of the term; however the annual rental for such holdover period shall increase by Ten (10 %) percent over that of the term just expired. ARTICLE XVIII Tenant's Indemnification of Landlord The Tenant shall assume all Iiability for damages which may arise from any accident which occurs in or about the Leased Premises while this Lease is in force, except as otherwise provided by this Lease, incident to Tenant's use of the Leased Premises, The Tenant agrees to make no claim against the Landlord for or on account of any loss or damage by reason of fire or other casualty (including utility breakage or malfunction) except as anticipated by this Lease or as may be caused by a breach of any of the Landlord's agreements hereof. The Landlord shall not be liable for damage to personal property in or about the Leased Premises. The Tenant shall save the Landlord harmless from any liability or expense arising from personal injury or property damage to others in or about the Leased Premises while this Lease or any renewal or extension hereof is in force. This indemnification clause shall not be construed to create any right of action or basis of claim on behalf of any third party against either party hereto. ARTICLE XIX Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment So long as the Tenant is not in default hereunder during the term hereof and any renewal or extension hereof, the Landlord covenants that the Tenant shall peaceably and quietly occupy Page 12 P163 V I.A. and enjoy the Leased Premises subject to the terms hereof. The Landlord warrants and agrees to defend the title to the Leased Premises, and further warrants that it has full authority to execute this Lease. ARTICLE XX Waiver No assent expressed or implied by the Landlord to any breach of any one or more of the covenants or agreements hereof by the Tenant shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any succeeding or other breach. ARTICLE XXI Eminent Domain 1. Award of Proceeds. In the event that all or part of the Leased Premises are taken in whole or in part by condemnation proceedings or eminent domain, or in the event that Landlord (and Tenant if necessary) shall convey all or a part of the Leased Premises in avoidance or in settlement of such condemnation proceedings, or threat of condemnation. proceeding (either of which is referred to hereinafter as "the taking") Landlord and Tenant herein agree as follows: If the taking is of a part of the Leased Premises which affects Tenant's use of the Leased Premises, then from the time of taking of physical possession by the condemnor or proposed condemnor, the then rent payable hereunder shall abate in the ratio that the area of the Leased Premises taken and/or affected bears to the area of the Leased Premises before such taking. Whether condemnation be for a part or the whole of the Leased Premises, the award, sale price, or amount received in settlement will be apportioned between Landlord and Tenant as follows: a. First, to the Landlord --all amounts attributable to the value of the land taken, such land to be valued as if free and clear of all liens and encumbrances including this Lease, and as if in the same condition as at the time of execution of this Lease. b. Next, to the Tenant --all amounts attributable to the value of the Improvements constructed on the Leased Premises. G. Finally, to the Landlord --the balance of the award, if any. Any person or party claiming by, through, or under Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall share in any award, sales proceeds, or settlement only out of the portion thereof allocated to the party, by through, or under which they claim. Page 13 P164 VI.A. 2. Entire Taping. In the event of the taping of the whole of the Leased Premises, this Lease shall terminate and all obligations of the parties to each other hereunder shall cease upon the taking of physical possession by the condemnor or proposed condemnor. 3. Partial Taking, Restoration. In the event of the partial taking or condemning of the Leased Premises, hereinabove mentioned, and if in such event Tenant does not, pursuant to Tenant's rights hereunder, elect to terminate this Lease, the award made to Tenant for such partial taking or condemnation shall be used for the restoration of the Improvements to the extent necessary to render the same a complete unit as nearly as possible equal in quality and as existed prior to the taking. ARTICLE XXII Default Events of Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute an event of default: Delinquency by the Tenant in payment of rent under this Lease after the date such rent became due and payable. b. Delinquency by the Tenant in the performance of or compliance with any of the other obligations of Tenant contained in this Lease after written notice thereof from Landlord to Tenant. C. Filing by or against the Tenant in any court pursuant to any statute either of the United States or of any state, of a petition in bankruptcy or insolvency, or for reorganization, or for the appointment of a receiver or trustee, of all or a portion of the Tenant's property. 2. Grace Period. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing the Landlord to declare this Lease in default, however, where the default consists in the nonpayment of rent, security, insurance, premiums, or taxes until such nonpayment, in violation of the terms of this Lease, shall have continued for thirty (30) days after the respective due dates for payment of such taxes, security, insurance premiums, and rent, and where the alleged default consists of some violation other than the nonpayment of rent, security, insurance premiums, or taxes, the Landlord may not declare this Lease in default until violation shall have continued for thirty (30) days after the Tenant shall have given the Lessee written notice of such violations, provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed as precluding the Landlord from having such remedy as may be and become necessary in order to preserve the Landlord's right and the interest of the Landlord in the Leased Premises and in this Lease, even before the expiration of the grace or notice Page 14 P165 V I.A. periods provided for in this Section; if, under particular circumstances then existing, the allowance of such grace or the giving of such notice would prejudice or endanger the rights and estate of the Landlord in this Lease and in the Leased Premises. 3. Three Day Notice. In the event of default in non-payment of rent as defined in Paragraph Ia. above, this Lease shall automatically terminate on the date specified in Landlord's three (3) day notice for payment of the rent or surrender of possession of the premises under Section 13-40-104(d), C.R.S., if Tenant fails to pay such rent as demanded in said notice. To avoid potential forfeiture on account of clerical error or oversight, Tenant shall have the right to require the Landlord to deliver any such notice to a bank or responsible person in Aspen, Colorado, to permit Tenant to arrange for payment of such rent within said three 3 day period. Notice of the identity and address of such other bank or person shall be specified in writing by Tenant from time to time. In the event of a default by Tenant under the provisions of Paragraphs lb. or le. above, this Lease shall automatically terminate on the date specified in Landlord's three-day (3) notice thereof under Section 13- 40-104(e) C.R.S. 4. Rights on Termination. Upon the termination of this Lease pursuant to the preceding subparagraph, the Tenant shall peacefully surrender the Leased Premises to the Landlord, and the Landlord upon or at any time after any such expiration may, without further notice, re-enter the Leased Premises and repossess it by force, summary proceedings, ejectment, or otherwise, and may dispossess the Tenant and remove the Tenant and all other persons and property from the Leased Premises, and may have, hold, and enjoy the Leased Premises and the right to receive all rental income therefrom. 5. Reletting. At any time after such termination, the Landlord may relet the Leased Premises or any part thereof, in the name of the Landlord or otherwise for such term (which may be greater or less than the period which would otherwise have constituted the balance of the term of this Lease) and on such conditions as the Landlord, in Landlord's uncontrolled discretion, may determine, and may collect and receive the rents therefor. 6. Effect of Termination. No such termination of this Lease shall relieve the Tenant's liability and obligations under this Lease, and such liability and obligations shall survive any such expiration. In the event of any such expiration, the Tenant shall pay to the Landlord the rent required to be paid by the Tenant up to the time of such expiration, and thereafter the Tenant, until the end of what would have been the term of this Lease in the absence of such expiration, shall be liable to the Landlord for, and shall pay to the Landlord as and for liquidated and agreed damages for the Tenant's default: a., The equivalent of the amount of the rent which would be payable under this Lease by the Tenant if the Lease were still in effect, less b. The net proceeds of any reletting effected pursuant to the provisions of the preceding subparagraph, after deducting all of the Landlord's expenses in Page 15 P166 VI.A. connection with such reletting, including, without limitation, all repossession costs, brokerage commission, legal expenses, attorneys' fees, alterations costs, and expenses of preparation for such reletting. ARTICLE XXHI Security Deposit Tenant shall, upon execution of this Lease, deposit with Landlord as security for the faithful performance by Tenant of all the terms of this Lease, the sum of $-0-. This deposit is to be retained by the Landlord until the termination of this Lease and any renewals or extensions hereof, and within sixty (60) days of termination of the Lease, the deposit will either be returned to Tenant or retained in whole or in part by Landlord in accordance with the provisions of Section 38-12-101, et seq. C.R.S. At no time may the Tenant use or apply this deposit in lieu of rent. ARTICLE XXIV Notice 1. Written Notice Required. All notices to be given with respect to this Lease shall be in writing. Each notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, to the party to be notified at the address as set forth in the Summary or at such other address as either party may from time to time designate in writing. 2. Method of Giving Notice. Every notice shall be deemed to have been given forty eight (48) hours after the time it shall be deposited in the United States Mails or with an air courier service with daily delivery to Aspen, Colorado, at the address of the party to which delivery is intended as contained in the Summary. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal process pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Addresses. Notice to the Landlord shall be addressed : The Simon P. Kelly and Nora D. Kelly Trusts P.O. Box 1583 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Page 16 P167 V I.A. With a copy to: Leonard M. Oates, Esq. Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C. 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611. 4. Notice to the Tenant shall be addressed : The $uckhorn Arms, LLC 732 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 8 61 Attention: a�'r� With a copy to: Preston Fox, Esq. 715 West Main Street Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ARTICLE XXV Expenses of Default: Attorne s' Fees All expenses including attorneys' fees occasioned by a default of a party hereunder shall be borne by the defaulting party. Should any legal proceedings become necessary with regard to this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs as part of any judgment recovered therein. ARTICLE XXVI Right of Landlord to Enter Premises Landlord or its agents or employees may enter upon the Leased Premises at any reasonable times during the term of this Lease with reasonable notice to Tenant or without such notice if it is deemed necessary by Landlord for protection of the Leased Premises. Page 17 91 .: VI.A. ARTICLE XXVII Unenforceable Provisions If any provision of this Lease shall be declared invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Lease shall continue in full force and effect. ARTICLE XXVIII Genders,• Defined Terms Where necessary to carry out the meaning hereof, the singular shall mean the plural, the plural the singular, and any gender apply to all genders. Where terms are defined herein or in the Summary, such terms shall have the same definition in both. ARTICLE XXVIl Merger Clause This Lease and any other document referenced therein as constituting apart hereof, shall constitute the total understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no modifications may be made except by a writing signed by both of the parties. ARTICLE XXX Binding Effect This Lease and all agreements herein contained shall bind the parties hereto and their heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. ARTICLE XXXI Landlord -Tenant Relationship Only The parties understand and agree that the relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant, and the Tenant specifically acknowledges that all statutory proceedings in the State of Colorado regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant respecting collection of rent or possession of the premises, accrue to the Landlord hereunder. Page 18 P169 V I.A. ARTICLE XXXII Right of First Refusal 1. Grant of Right of First Refusal. The Landlord agrees not to sell or grant options with respect to or otherwise dispose of the Leased Premises unless Landlord shall (i) have received a bona fide arm's-length offer from an unaffiliated party for such sale or disposition, (ii) have notified Tenant in writing of the identity and address of the offeror and all of the provisions of such offer, and (iii) afford to Tenant the prior option to purchase or to otherwise acquire the demised premises on the same provisions as those contained in the offer. 2. Exercise. Such right of first refusal shall be exercisable by written notice given within the thirty (30) days next following the receipt by the Tenant of Landlord's notice of such offer, which shall be given by the Landlord within ten (10) days after receipt of such offer. If the Tenant shall fail to exercise its option and if the Landlord shall not thereafter sell or dispose of the Leased Premises pursuant to the provisions of such offer the foregoing prohibition against sale or other disposition by the Landlord shall continue in full force and effect, and the Tenant's foregoing option shall thereafter apply to any subsequent offer on the same terms as set forth above. 3. Closings. The notice provided in Section 7 shall set forth therein the time of closing and a place of closing (which may not be more than five (5) miles from the Leased Premises unless the Landlord consents thereto). The time of closing shall be designated in the notice of exercise but not later than sixty (60) days after the giving of such notice. 4. Closing Procedure. At such closing (i) the Tenant shall pay to Lessor (by good funds) the applicable purchase price; (ii) the Landlord shall convey good and marketable title of the Leased Premises to the Tenant free and clear of all encumberances and title defects other than those which arose at the Tenant's request or by virtue of the Tenants tenancy; and (iii) the Landlord and Tenant shall execute any and all documents which may be necessary to effectuate such closing and the transfer of title contemplated hereunder. 5. Exemptions. The foregoing provisions of this Section shall not apply to the sale, transfer, or other disposition of the Leased Premises to (i) any parent, sibling, child, or grandchild of Lessor, or trust for the benefit of any of. them (ii) to a partnership, corporation or limited liability company owned or controlled by any or all of them. 6. Failure to Exercise. if the Tenant shall not exercise the right of first refusal herein granted and the Leased Premises are sold by the Landlord pursuant to the bona fide arm's length contract the Leased Premises shall thereafter be free and clear of this Article XXXT�,JJ qj Page 19 P170 VI.A. ARTICLE XXXIII Option to Purchase Option to Purchase. Landlord hereby grants to the Tenant an option to purchase fee simple ownership of the Leased Premises at the then fair market value thereof for a six (6) month period commencing at the expiration of forty-nine (49) years, six (6) months from the commencement of the Lease until the fifty (50) years from the commencement hereof. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be established by an appraisal prepared by an appraiser with an MAI designation (or its equivalent) selected by mutual agreement of Landlord and Tenant, and paid for by them equally; and, if they shall fail to agree, then the appraiser shall be appointed by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Colorado upon application of either the Landlord or Tenant. The appraisal prepared by the appraiser selected shall be binding on the parties. Such appraisal shall not contain any discount for the existence of this Lease. Closing Proration and Transfer Taxes. The closing of any purchase shall be for cash (or other good funds) which shall occur on or before the sixtieth (60') business day following delivery of the written appraisal to the Landlord and Tenant by the appraiser. Conveyance shall be by General Warranty Deed free and clear of all liens and encumberances, subject however to patent reservations and mineral reservations of record, and applicable building and zoning regulations, with prorations as are customary in real estate transactions in Pitkin County, Colorado. Any real estate transfer taxes imposed by any governmental authority shall be paid by the Buyer. 4. Title Insurance. Landlord shall, at their expense, provide Tenant with basic coverage of Owner's Policy of Title Insurance in connection with the Tenant's purchase of the Leased Premises. 5. Failure to Exercise. If the Tenant shall fail to exercise the option above granted, such option shall be null, void and of no further force and effect. ARTICLE XXXiV Miscellaneous 1. Force Majeure. In the event that the Landlord or Tenant shall be delayed, hindered in, or prevented from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strifes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, failure of power, restrictive government laws or regulations, riots, insurrection, the act, failure to act or default of the other party, war or other reason beyond their control, then performance of such act shall Page 20 P171 V I.A. be excused for the period of the delay and the period for the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay. 2. Estoppel Certificates. Either party shall, without charge, at any time and from time to time hereafter, within ten days after written request of the other, certify by written instrument duly executed and acknowledged to any mortgagee or purchaser or proposed mortgagee or proposed purchaser, or any other person, firm, or corporation specified in such request: a. As to whether this Lease has been supplemented or amended, and, if so, the substance and manner of such supplement or amendment; b. As to the validity and force and effect of this Lease, in accordance with its tenor as then constituted; As to the existence of any default thereunder; d. As to the existence of any offsets, counterclaims, or defenses thereto on the part of such other party; e. As to the commencement and expiration dates of the term of this Lease; and As to any other matters as may reasonably be so requested. Any such certificate may be relied upon by the party who requested it and any other person, firm, or corporation to whom the same may be exhibited or delivered, and the contents of such certificate shall be biding on the party executing the same. Short Form Lease. The parties will at any time, at the request of either one, promptly execute duplicate originals of an instrument, in recordable form, which will constitute a short form of lease, setting forth a description of the Leased. Premises, the term of this Lease and any other portions thereof, excepting the rental provisions, as either party may request. 4. Tax Deductions on Improvements. Only the Tenant shall have the right to take deductions on its tax returns with respect to buildings, structures, improvements, changes, alterations, repairs, additions, and installations on the Leased Premises and the depreciation thereof. Written Waiver Required. That no modification, release, discharge, or waiver of any provisions hereof shall be of any force, effect, or value unless in writing signed by the Lessor, or its duly authorized agent or attorney. Page 21 P172 VI.A. 6. Approvals Not Unreasonably Withheld. Whenever the Tenant requests any consent, permission, or approval which may be required or desired by the Tenant pursuant to the provisions hereof, the Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold or postpone the grant of such consent, permission, or approval. If the Tenant requests such consent, permission, or approval and Landlord does not notify Tenant of its express disapproval thereof within forty-five (45) days after the receipt of such request setting forth its reasons therefor, such consent, permission, or approval shall be deemed to have been granted. IN WITNESS WHERROI+, the Landlord and Tenant have executed this Net Ground Lease on the day and year first above written. WARM0__•'f THE SIMON P. KELLY TRUST dated January ;4, 1993 Simon P. Kelly, Trustee THE NORA D. KELLY TRUST dated January 4, 1993 Nora D. Felly, Trustee TENANT: THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC Page 22 P173 V I.A. 1 7 - GUARANTEE For value received the undersigned, acknowledging a direct and substantial benefit from the granting of the Lease to which this Guarantee is attached hereby jointly and severally guarantee the payment of the rent and the performance of the covenants and agreements made by the Tenant in the foregoing Lease covenanted and agreed, in -manner and form as in said Lease provided, limited to the obligation accruing during the first five (S) years of the term of the Lease. The foregoing Guarantee is made upon the condition that the Landlord will not reasonably withhold consent to the substitution of an assignee of the Lease as a substitute guarantor with the release of the guarantors signing below so long as such substitute guarantor(s) shall be at least as financially capable of performing under the Guarantee as the undersigned guarantors. WITNESS his hand and seal this 15 day of no c- r- c , 2000. C:ADatalcllentskKelIyWet Ground Leaso.redlined VX-agQ, 2.1. flnal.wpd P174 VI.A. P175 V I.A. EXHIBIT a ORDINANCE N0. (SERIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL RELEASING OBLIGATION TO ENTER A DEED RESTRICTION REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO RESTRICTIONS ON THE EASTERLY 9.27 FEET OF LOT Q, ALL OF LOTS R & S, BLOCK 105 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 27 (Series of 1983), the Aspen City Council approved an application to rezone the following described property from "O" (Office) to "CL" (Commercial Lodge): THE EASTERLY 9.27 FEET OF LOT Q, ALL OF LOTS R & S, BLOCK 105 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO and, WHEREAS, the owner of the property above-described, as an inducement to the City Council to grant his rezoning application voluntarily agreed to maintain a 1 to 1 external floor area ratio on the site and also agreed to certain parking requirements; and, WHEREAS, as a condition of the approval the owner of the property was to prepare and record a deed restriction approved by the City Attorney; and, WHEREAS, the owner never recorded such deed restriction; and, WHEREAS, the "O" (Office) zone is now known as Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, the CL zone district in its present status is an appropriate zone designation for this property; and, WHEREAS, the circumstances which led to the requirement of the deed restriction are no longer applicable; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed release of the obligation of the owner to provide a deed restriction is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Aspen City Council hereby adopts the terms of the of the Covenant Agreement in Association With Aspen City Council Ordinance No, 2 (Series Of 2009), attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and directs the Mayor and staff to execute such agreement. P176 Page I Section 2: Pursuant to its terms, upon the full execution and recordation of such agreement, the obligation of the Owner to prepare and record a deed restriction on the property regarding the external floor area ratio and parking requirements shall be released. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. A public hearing on this Ordinance will be held on the 9`h day of March 2009 in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23`d day of February 2009. &AZA -1; , - mro F a F, , nx 5 S Xt- -4. WA ust ii ity Clerk Michael C. r land, Mayo FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9d' day of March, 2009. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John o tester, City Attorney P177 MichaeVtfff-rei�a'Zu-d, M or Page 2 VLA. V I.A. COVENANT AGREEMENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.2 (SERIES OF 2009) THIS COVENANT AGREEMENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ASPEN CITY rA COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2 (SERIES OF 2009) (this "Agreement") . is made as of 19tt ) Y , 2009, by THE SIMON P. KELLY TRUST dated January 4, 1993 and THE NORA D. KELLY TRUST dated January 4, 1993 (together, the "Owner'), THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Ground Lessee"), and the CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado homerule municipality (the "City"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Owner owns that certain land legally described as the Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Owner has leased the Property to the Ground Lessee pursuant to the terms of that certain Net Ground Lease dated as of March 13, 2000 (the "Ground Lease"), a short form of which was recorded on March 13, 2000 at Reception No. 441336 in the real property records maintained by the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Records"); and by virtue of such Net Ground Lease and a General Warranty Deed recorded in the Records on March 13, 2000 at Reception No. 441334, the Ground Lessee is also the owner of the building and other improvement located on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Property was rezoned from Office ("O") to Commercial Lodge ("Cu') with the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 27 (Series of 1983) on condition that the Owner restrict the external floor area ratio for development on the Property to a maximum of 1:1 and retain the present number of legal parking spaces, which restriction was to be evidenced by a deed restriction approved as to form by the City Attorney and recorded by Owner (collectively, the "Existing Condition"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 2 (Series of 2009) (the "Ordinance"), the City has agreed to release the Existing Condition on the condition that the Owner and the Ground Lessee voluntarily agree to replace the Existing Condition by executing this Agreement and delivering it to the City for recording in the Records. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, provisions, covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: L Release of Existing Condition. The City agrees that the Existing Condition is released and shall no longer have any application to the Property. 2, New Covenant and Restriction. From the date of this Agreement forward, the Property shall be subject to the City of Aspen planned unit development regulations codified in Section 26.445 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as they may be amended from time to time (the "PUD Regulations"). Pursuant to Section 26.445.100.0 of the PUD Regulations, an accurate improvements survey of the existing conditions of the Property shall be deemed a PUD Plan for RECEPTION#: 558001, 04/14/2009 at 01:39:39 PM, 1 OF 6, R $31.00 Doc Code AGREEMENT MR476.2 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P178 VI.A. the Property for purposes of evaluating whether any proposed changes to the Property constitute an insubstantial or other amendment under the terms of the PUD Regulations. At such time as the Owner and/or Ground Lessee apply for a substantial PUD amendment ("Final PUD Plan") and such is approved for the Property: 1) the Final PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Records pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.445.070 of the PUD Regulations; 2) Owner and Ground Lessee shall file in the Records a Notice of PUD Designation pursuant to Section 26.445.080 of the PUD Regulations; 3) the Community Development Director of the City shall, per Section 26.445.090 of the PUD Regulations, amend the City's Official Zone District Map to show a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation on the Property; and 4) this covenant contained in this Section 2 shall no longer be necessary and shall be released by the City. Acknowledging that Ground Lessee has the right to improve, develop and alter the Property and the improvements thereon pursuant to and after satisfaction of any conditions contained in the Ground Lease, Owner hereby agrees that Ground Lessee has Owner's consent to process any land use applications regarding the Property (including without limitation those under the PUD Regulations), and Owner agrees to join in any such applications as may be necessary. 3. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Records. The Ground Lessee shall pay the required recording fees, but the City will execute the recordation. 4. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owner, the Ground Lessee, the City, and their respective successors and assigns. If the Ground Lessee purchases the Owner's interest in the Property, then the rights and obligations of the Owner under this Agreement shall merge into those of the Ground Lessee and the Ground Lessee shall be the successor to the Owner for all purposes under this Agreement. S. Amendment. This Agreement be amended only by written instrument executed by the Owner, the Ground Lessee and the City, or their respective successors or assigns. 6. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. 7. Enforcement. The parties hereby agree that in any adjudicated controversy concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Failure to enforce this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any rights to commence enforcement. EXECUTED AND AGREED TO by the parties as of the date first given above. [remainder of page intentionally blank; signature pages follow] 8SM.1 2 P179 V I.A. cITY: CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado homerule municipalit By: _ —I MOOR Michael C. Ireland, Mayor WITNESSED: Kathryn K VII City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4:oh; orcester, City Attorney FSBilb.2 91 •e OWNER: THE SIMON P. KELLY TRUST dated January 4, 1993 By: f Simon P. Kelly, Trustee THE NORA D. KELLY TRUST dated January 4, 1993 By: Nora D. Kelly, Trustee STATE OF rzovlq ) )ss. COUNTY OFNim ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this S day of Matv-� , 2009, by Simon P. Kelly as Trustee of The Simon P. Kelly Trust dated January 4, 1993. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Christopher Romero NOTARY PUBLIC -- ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY My Commission Expires December 2B, 2011 STATE OF A,,M) )ss, COUNTY OF ro,p�j ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5 day of a"L— , 2009, by Nora D. Kelly as Trustee of The Nora D. Kelly Trust dated January 4, 1993. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 689176 2 Otary PWric 4 P181 VI.A. V I.A. STATE OF C) }ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoinins ment was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009, by j t as Manager of The Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 885906_] DY��f Notary Public NQTAR), Pus u IN CvrrxnSOM Exprn Larch 10 2012 P182 VI.A. GROUND LESSEE: THE BUCKHORN ARMS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company B o On Hoffman III, Manager By: Terrance uire, Manager By: Mark Campisl, Mana STATE OF t COUNTY OF The f reg Q' strument was acknowledged before me this � day of 2009, by tti �D as Manager of The Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. GAGIK KARAGE commission # 1 Witness my hand and official seal. d .m .. Notary Public - C+ My commission expires:—)c� �j E%rO% Los Angeles a n --Rotary Publ' GA KAR GEZIAN STATE OFcommisslon # 1788163 ii Nolary Publlo - Callfornla )ss. r los Angeles Counly COUNTY OF )""' x"301 The foregoing instruent was acknowledged before me thi�dday of !/ 2009, by as Manager of The Buckhorn Arms, LLC, a Colorado limited liability co pany. Witness my hand ►f al. My commissio xpYrg, `�f?'� ar Eli •. ..USO oFo� Notary Public sa®sc�+ htY Cor e> ssan Ernes March 10 2012 g P183 VI.A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING 5 CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT: SECTION 26.04.100, DEFINITION OF "LODGE" ORDINANCE No. 46, SERIES OF 1996 WHEREAS, Section 26.92.020 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to Chapter 26 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the planning and Zoning Commission at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the new "lodge" definition created by Ordinance No, 29, Series of 1996, only applies to properties which were previously zoned Lodge Preservation; and WHEREAS, Simon and Nora Kelly, owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, have requested that the new "lodge" definition also apply to properties currently zoned Commercial Lodge: the Bucklrorn Lodge, the Aspen Square, and the North of Nell; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Cornrnission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on December 10, 1996; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text unendments, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Mruzicipal Code, to wit, Division 92 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment by a vote of 6-0, pursuant to procedure as authorized by Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the text amendments raider the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and VI.A. considered those reconlinendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comnent at a public hearings and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment offers Commercial Lodge properties more options as an incentive to maintain lodge use, and is consistent with the relief granted to the Lodge Preservation properties by Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1996, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment meets or exceeds all applicable development standards, and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community PIan, the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section k Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 (Standards of Review) of the Municipal Code, the City Cotincil finds as follows in regard to the text amendments to amend the definition of "lodge": The proposed text amendment is not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed text amendment is compatible with surround rig zone districts and land uses. 3. The proposed text amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. &ction.2: The "lodge" definition in Section 26.04. 100 of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended, which text shall read as follows: Lodge meatis a blcildhtg ivitlliti theed Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building presently zoned Conintercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooins for the purpose of providing lodging facilities on a short or long-ter111 basis, for conipensation, lvith or tvithozit ideals, and which has connnon facilities for reseivation and P185 VLA. cleaning services, and on-site rnanagenrent and reception. A lodge rrray include kitchens within individual rental units. „ Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded tuider such prior ordinances. Section 4: 1£ any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of January, 1997 at 5:04 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of December, 1996, Attest: Katheyn S. Koch, City Clerk C. John Bennett, Mayor ]FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of ]an-uaiy, 1997. John hennett, Mayor Katlivyn'S. I(och, City Clerk G� P187 VI.A. I V I.A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORDINANCE NO. 27 (Series of 1963) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE EASTERLY 9.27 FEET OF TAT Q, ALL OF LATS R & S, BLOCK 105, IN AND TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FROM "0" (OFFICE) TO "CL" (COMMERCIAL -LODGE) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to rezone the fol- lowing described property from "O" (Office) to "CL" (Commercial Lodge): The Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, all of Lots R & S, Block 105 City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and, WHEREAS, the property owner as an inducement to the City Council to grant his rezoning application has agreed on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns to the establishment of a restriction of 1 to 1 external floor area ratio permanently on the site, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the requested rezoning to "CL" (Commercial Lodge) to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, and WHEREAS, the "CL" (Commercial Lodge) zone is a proper zone for this site.due to its proximity to both commercial and lodging uses and hecause the current use of the site is commercial and lodge, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the site not be rezoned and has expressed a concern that a "CL" (Commercial Lodge) zone designation would allow an exces- sively large structure to be placed on the site, and WHEREAS, the property owner has voluntarily agreed to main- tain aim tain a 1 to i external floor area ratio permanently on the site, and VI.A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves WHEREAS, having considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the City Council desires that the easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, all of Lots R and 5, Block 105, in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, be rezoned from "O" (Office) to "CL" (Commercial -Lodge), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section i That it does hereby rezone to use the following described property from "O" (Office) to "CL" (Commercial -Lodge), subject to the regulations applicable to said zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, as now exists or may hereafter be amended: Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and that, as agreed to by the owner of the property on behalf of himself, his successors and assigns, as an inducement to the City Council to grant such rezoning, the owner shall restrict the external floor area ratio governing said property to a maximum of 1:1 and retain the present number of legal parking spaces, which restrictions shall be evidenced by a deed restriction approved as to form by the City Attorney and recorded by the owner. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be and hereby is amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect the aforesaid rezoning. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ABU V I.A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Section 4 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of , 1983, at 5;00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the � day of /lLGLL1/ , 1983. Herman Edel, Mayor _ ^^ ATTEST: Kathryn S. och, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this (! day of 1983. ATTEST:. Kathryn S. och, City Clerk P190 ..-�N VI.A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fx.c,. r.ic.n a.caa[ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, read in full, and passed on reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on _ Qom—�, 19, and published in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of 19 !1 and was finally adopted 14, and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on C_.f�GZ.G�Lf/ 19 and ordered published, ae Ordinance No. , Series of 19, of said City, as 'provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of 'said City of Aspen, Colorado this day of Kathryn Koch, City Clerk SEAT, Deputy City Clerk P191 VI.A. EXHIBIT DRAWING TITLE: VICINITY MAP c.,•, �:, s a r�. �cw:+-ran rr��ttf>,I G_. � " ySCALE: NTS PROJECT h4A: LOCATION t.O : Ca N DRAWN BY: Pk BUCKHORN MIXED USE 730 E. COOPER AVE. GATE: St27114 REVIEMO: TIF P192 VI.A. P193 V I.A. EXHIBIT Instructions: 1. Trip Generations: Enter the project's new square footage and or unit counts under the "Size" column. 2. MMLOS: Answer''yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. = input = calculation DATE: 8-8-14 PROJECT NAME: LODGING AND RETAIL PROJECT ADDRESS: 730 E, COOPER Is this a major or minor project? Minor 'For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 49s reduction for AM Peak -Flour and a 14/o reduction for PM Peak - Hour can be applied to the trip generation. ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak -Hour PM Peak -Hour %Exiting Proposed Land Use Size Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (5f) 3207.0 sf 5.02 2.26 7.28 5.31 7.97 13.28 Free -Market Housing (Units) 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units) 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units) 44.0 Units 6.27 4.73 11.00 7.09 6.55 13.64 Essential Public Facility (sfJl 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 TOTAL NEW TRIP51 11.29 1 6.99 1 17.55 1 12.40 1 14.51 1 23.15 'For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 49s reduction for AM Peak -Flour and a 14/o reduction for PM Peak - Hour can be applied to the trip generation. ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trlp Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0,69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free -Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 055 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 1 0.38 1 1.66 1 0.4 0.6 P194 MMLOS Input Page VI.A. P195 Pe - P195 VI.A. 1 22:, s—k rr4as rE{?rEserrtr a rr—d-used site tSF &7/Area Tr¢,>d S,nvy). See Mf,Oitns Toh (tr — det P196 7DM 111put Page kravfrcccre: k Tt'gs rie.ttat.ars: Em. as P,oetCs -quare footage and cr -t [r_+ts fa'.ier tF-e'S-ve' co'_•.m.s 2. F.IMOS: Fnsnzr'1 zs' ar ia' u w4 -r each of L}, F.w'a;trll.n, W1 .,de -ft —f- 3. TOM: Ct... 0, --in that a .p-opmte for}—Fr[.O. E 4. S'srmary: A firnmary of 0,e Tco eds m tld,ted trip€ Strate*y VMT Category Sub. Quaadon Arvwae Redvcllors h'an orsste ammrsYyes stratpT( W_ imp"m+ErrtEd7 0n;m Stnfang YEs ' r 3.'7h hh'eh o-R'ea^dnErs'tss wit to krv-.errrtsstEd7 W.2 sen C 7+�lashx rEd sh.+7tSx sen'xe ft. ateKf ke 4r{.-emerf_[d7 Yes shard sfs�ttk S=*'rce - _ ','•hat is the ftegree M LrsVterr._ntat:rrt law r5 Fsat is Vv [arnpas(1xe7 _ 5ma1 .� khat tray Q.1— are e' -a t.et lim Pir}ntvrixEd Ya-�Es .5'�lamr +a[odx�i ea.:zSSVatE-I t_IrrpeTs=led? 1:a OLs5:3 Strategy Vt.1T Category sub. QoeC n Answer _ Reductions ;Yrlar.E[,vook E'Fsansan slrrgt( beirW'<rtnted7 F:etaar"o Erpam'o,� hhst$ttx p[r[Ertagt Pr ,eofV--,n-t—r4m;_E" .4 OMi r5 haus thee.�st:atra[fs-tmxk sL�re of a`5 [+rtaI y h'. t a sen'.[e lr.u'xrfc�/SF,s �"d sSre:ce l.Cv im�z: Jr_ed7 ita � J,hatBtfie Fr, reM��redxtian Fn h[adnaFs {kcrEase rrf fr )7 Aha[ lS tFr_Erif=ra Vant't merle ifsare a{d %oF to-tal Qa. rrps7 .Shat k&t "d of irnp'rtrardai"ron7 <SOK of 1-r _sinitr�n F.'e;e:tl im�rorei Trans[Axee:ssLmFlo'ieme+.t is- atra'fs1 mess irnpre.u-martstra;e be krpkmfr2Ed7 !:o 0M% ,+,hal is lFrt E,ic-ni eF xc.:sT irprw Er,e1257 f': th'n PrtAYt Oie' e Y W..—Ept lot .5. l an i ;+irce , h.t strateer t2 irrp'.Er, v�[£;Tf !ia o:{11X S Category Sub- Questf4••n Anz'.':es Reducy'PubT xedf,<dans Fart;cpeGm in 70P A'i l tyre bs. partc,3:'a.r in T1117 '✓,hat P— -t -g. of E.arc ['-t"? tt a tra-+a%t fare ririMS strs*�Ty lm ev-n;�.1f No Tra-st Fare Sts'3r Oros Y, tot PErrE.ntaga of emg'or'aas are elgbe? 25% Wrhal Is the dfrr5l+i Of trarfa<7 S+cbFd/PEf pd4 W:/"v`!")? {3 dnE 'ai Ee r1'rg [ash-a'4V-t E.rp'mrEa Fara:ng Cash�srt jild Orr ,4'Rt _cr-ntaiofEm. '.1(ea are E!akae7 IO tsa xarYpfareyari;rg ig straCEaYLry'[rrrE..i4ed? M1n 5yvr.9ace Far, rg Fde $ 15'hat Vs 1Yt da:y F'afi:rsTchargeT - - -- L - 0 r'7%= 'h hat F: rcrnt=•e ofe 'oees ,kj_d to prZed ',q7 Ic"% +s a taryrtssed wolx arEru rzrateiy Irrp'em-_nt[d f :'� C—xessed Wr kVree:s .S hat Feroentage of em 'vreuee tdpatg7 V11sat is tke srohn ze4schedlaT 7dr Cp r,ur I1 an Emp'o(Er sPor+sEr[d sFuitra pros cm i.rk'_T._�-ed7 _ YES _ _ W'E Cmq'arer SF=nsared V. -j: -A .5'hstu thaemplrrrs s%ae7 0354: '4'isst rtedtt3 a of em ' mare E' ' G' °? _-__ _ _ 25% Isaurtxt.,,ta.`�sratEarrm:m,,:a> CarF:,_', Tr9:ihF,g ifs - 73v3; ,5itat -creta-a of Er 'c - -da? IMS c Is tanha'e PaotdPaGen te'ng HP4—Med? do CsnhareFrogam OG}X Haw —i—Wee nvratrnh'ff hasx been pxdsssop _- c10O +ShsS F-rccnt a3 EmFsrers aee Er¢±at Isat',-tsharE PTS ms-rt'cpal�on ke'r��sp'rme-Gsd7 _ tyo zICq _ aPl[share Program sox man(--Cp, ha. -a t_'n O..d7 0C'Y6 E 0"1 pa,tent,Ve ofem. 'siees/g,r_str are- 'e? E is an ted. Df-lr=p_fat+'tws stmt ' IrnpPa-.it+Y.cd7 Ycs Er.3vf7rp Fazi'.:`Es h'hst�the d-grEe aFEr•F.'rmnta:'on7 Kai. 3�`0"fi r53sas k tFw afn.�v. e.+ szz7 Srv`I Is a seV ded Emem- rate h— wn.gn( k -m krple,naraed7 N. c,_;r f✓r3x3 EmergErry P. dx F,--- OOOil 'shat :�rvta tote .a -s arz e'�b`z7 Isatvjao'/ra.-fbo4 It sva tri iK +rEm.[+KedT hU _ Carp-'Na-rroai Fr-rTrity Far;r.'..•g 00]4 ''�4'h;t Bthe Em' ca iaet '4ma9 rrtfatrs,t roFc er xatsareari�;*+�tartr2 .[�ra•�i I saprirata Emp`v/Er skaRtk sxratEgybreyT k., �ma-,:cd7 ,r5'hax Iia yrsk4 T Frr, a[e Ern;io, Er Sh1:t'e tette em;�oa ar trzeT 007: shhal +[ErAxga of tnF.', i{s a re [' g t•`e? Tep P.=dxt'en Asariet:r4Arx—s,.e 9s atnp rrdxt'on martet'r��-r_E-� .a Fro -gram 'aesrrrzdt PrYa _ _ Frc2rar Y.lut Farterilaaa aF E.�psrrrs/gs:sts are.e'"-b'a7 1 22:, s—k rr4as rE{?rEserrtr a rr—d-used site tSF &7/Area Tr¢,>d S,nvy). See Mf,Oitns Toh (tr — det P196 DATE: 8-8-14 PROJECT NAME: LODGING AND RETAIL PROJECT ADDRESS: 730 E. COOPER VI.A. SUMMARY Trip Generation Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE ............................................................................ p.................,............... ................... .............,................................-........................,.............g........ Peak Hour MoxTr! sGeneroted MMLOS TDM TripsTotolMft! ated MITIGATED PM 23.,1485428 20 1.54 2154 1.61 Please return to sheet "1. Trip NINtization" and provide the required Inputs for the proposed land ute. P197 VI.A. Assumptions Page General Input F—­Fc—,c' -v—, Nelghbof hood / Site I.ha nceme.ts St.tqfes MR103 sc I sw k... — f'; -i tFfV %%I[ j— %7 "AT S. A� S T, M-, Fr.. -3., Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Prageams Strategies MR103 sc I sw k... — f'; -i tFfV �d Ot e,<h--k t I5" lzr- MR103 r.'.owe.r.. tru<-<¢a=.�=.f ca -.s. •,.e»�..*ss-.r.��,.E_= n e«YaTli ret.,atr--e.rm U"r.`-i rrcr:rrr. s -a acrJPr-et orf« x,iw. a e Pra4a d a`e !a-r�-a v,: •7 r irks �"C'•a. si-rcrzal� 3Tr.-�.c+-.srea sd ac?isYCN os -Y N>rh. tb k•.}adCe lrrL�e-Vi]63 F=..[ -aa r+�r-aaatc-olr. r2`A-]25'<vd¢ld-]h•vauhYdv.'4p FrY! t Sol �r-Ixv.arlr,„.nt¢-asvdraafs[�r.•�r-,�rr=�. xa,Yr�.+, n_zrt:do-GY-rrzxcrra.e..a.N frt ef. e+-fisk.:kdex ssfufsf .Y.s+'•-+nT,a s.e tretcsarR� - r�l4Cnl sr e.ldNi•"aFaY•9 e'fk.a rP Taxan .'a al F:isrLa-lgra e+`+a awl ri✓1. sre, cys++ sie•�4 4�4 W Yvbi4rvl r......LL`J p¢t.N rA •e'd C[r d itz, a>• t Cr.-+..Fc.n SQr re,-te14 a gyrT+'s rd l�tlsa wa lrsf iaa Lzr .•14J.s.j',�':e, �-ivrax�kr pJJ[n-,e farms �z:d�. brf p 7..fe£5 lean aN ;e A'a.s E"'+a .za sn'•r¢'-•r[elrya atrt. [-]Hsr-ho V� E>vr.�rre,rsc�...t_s ra:s.�'Jv>�.am.*.rdveaxd'ara-fhaaY�swa'nafos r. rl-aiv6:'x FMri Ova ra_i {ar�aa.aia-.L- [ G �a a -e' caN µley-Y+ra K--..S�ak: t.y Aare. etxuc•+Jp=pa.JNi,a-c¢rniceaF�iVF'P r¢4a-ck a.-rsa±aal� r+. w+d.a-0r 4d...AY*s '.tys.f31:'i w•s'ev:a^le'a-w r�W-..ax Ve*; d -c - aa_i er;mL.--.a.-vY.xYlde3Jh aYc.a,x-a«_.nl rd rr,.al. "•`rnh.:zY p., ahr*aeiv-x.ardati'l-, n3:F'a,'n rs+-+e¢n v`a wA+1 •- �fozrtm d. trn .l rAa; Rs Tela;0."r ¢-pa ra �+JA:�.i �-.mad�a ra aM<v-ar�af wt.ns rtr<i&3ir 4s'a db E a�,4a E .tnrfy�---rflr,Td Sa,rvrfJ P'-P:"till#'�'aa,E-f�ja�r<vel .gaey r:a r.4uf @. r+.ef C-Yleyx a:z srd lrl=CFG4facl rlv':,+SYtb"f+I"�3 fr srTtbe+'v aM •rx aha:h'�' xE'�t«r'4m�..;.a-c� �to-aal.4 eta -sac - m4�v-a'r>.t-�li.a rs...n, c•rrac.Ly±t r^sdaMu a-sxa r.m:.:.�*.nrw+.: w'*'•r wcr^, .„.. egr,:,,ra=i. d.aexY a�garr; r.:t --uk�-'e; a..rr�.Yrse�x[aM[�ik ae�vY E'-iesar�c*:..i ca.raio45vTa a�-Ra srs_iJ .i[".+•a r=L4 r -s S<4rc/F�, - _ Fr�+c-rd[afu9nmlar YS F.avidc'-a' aaT va iv'snn�rrc�rtaa [a�ahyxl CrSmap=fr.«M.f lt1 4-133 •�r.Sa_cS'--dFs-- m�v>z-rry+.rW ...«...a3G. rR 1`zr.rm•J F':MsirT F^-afa aana la a4ri r r'fa P]Gl eanm i+'+Yra Er fzv rr�'�•P.sd{r-Jva'a'A vsrv.yu r�a+c�esr�. B1±5*aa h:aT•l da�a3 �.do.cma'aa”<,I cr b.rvft+4e 4+vitrfc alsraACTi 331 tra.rt Pe an+dJ f :ywt as �.aY r-�.-S.a3{a •_tba a.:a•f �efc�ri pq n E.M dF.g azi.�.t'1c![a.�.a�342�arrrF,�vatlre�nrasuga�rwfr.r*y 4r.dd.c'=-r'�+'r. k•=+=+lar"al m�'s�d.eaVl-a"e..eatl ....r.rs �Ux:3rr l•�aL:is.�.-'+Sll ry E-..ct:aii u`-'.-eio�+via. a - =i<rd>=.J Fla r:aa pr..Je.•rYJ<arda �.iT{asx NM]anratiW kx4rrnPr Ta bc4ra GA'hra csalH-`-1s.4., 4-s-.ra➢-C Ad++.oF ri>t7'=:..?arF`t.�Z}H-. s!�:t-�adr4r�r.eP-tea cera eaartrrrrx «a fr. a--p�'L.�s., hsxs�n l>s�tl e-.ri.•Yr[�1rrt-.r E,.�[rr c�rrar-n-wa+r.,e.--tr, raw,f.e�M...�aw-r-�•�[�s-c 7a trt« ra rsr.>•J �-se7., C:+M ra-rv®a Jnry-al recd. bar.d•abaa bra-�•.-A+!'4, r.:ta,-d taar4 *.a -e- .n rralo»Jta , oaf r-Ficwr a i. Ca. S':a-til lc-. ir�rrrtrilaw�.�'.4 af.1. �e-�-v.P. z,i rczvJJ.�. r -G m:: rNalra:: !`G'=. -ea-J is Fx�xl:-Ye�I re.S.�I+Se:LftA1.5'+CI rzad �•te-gra,r.-asc.�Rrv.,�wrs.nas-sn.-[tcr«au��.: ��-�., -pa lcla, x'«.«,'rP tYPim•.a rTSc>--I ra4�sl csaGaacarLa cr.vbca �lrlca ahrri f,:aa-:. wrrcuer,i-�.'aa s-lK^.s.a: uiar_+rrs,,.�sa>ea�cr--F>s ralr frrR. =irca Fk•n 4Vfreir-,ea �hra r�sr--i V..—�r,a atl-a'r;.-fsY�.s o-.•e.-sv J: 0:a�x+rd a>-nssre2 eF.ua eiu-r--a].ryfiY:rN_s wde tcFfr (�rb a ra:¢atlrax..cf psdt•_, a, irYri �l1[sw Faso o^.'rr�r-Slryea+nacxnbtrn.✓.i va f+a.ra M_'. ra�acV ma+:•STl•.:F FlsYsa a�a-a i, pv rr� :l rEt.,.Fs«yi ba l: 'i ,. _.s,W-Y frs¢crJ LLcadrY4Y_ P199 VI.A. 4 0 s! z 2 4 �.,r. x,�x-er'r w ra-,.a+.r...,�« wo-c+.rw ra�...a„s-; r•r�x. rr�vny_.rrn.v r. -2l a. Gaerd trJtvv Rr�Ja rirm., er. 40 �i Sri4Src, Ra.-rdAa:a[-trrcia-wev .d.lae ffi.�e a^GkYaars rz«'.v:lr csd Cr3aad r:a-.•y:�-_4.NF:..r�. r.sv,Iis].a�E'�1*?raa� a.Nvt,CfSi+tee.+z.L�`J fr�.Yarsa.CrrsYa¢. r. L'.yry ra[+-1Y [a bLG t-+?�-#ta; reis,[<Y_u Fi#I �I dn«Rzrlt•-scr•1.:5n ay ¢OAF .i+'a fna-ry.r'fta'�iK vla C:r.t d--tJr crJf r-e.r� ..+e,-�ver'aa-+rrf.0a, c+F=a..r_ 0usrct C+l' r b CarHr_u, iY+slirr,..i-1 uu<�Jp:S.Ya.:+•U�Y.nl o-s»v rc«�ih ai6-insx3'A•i [.-tet C -J, a::l.wte �^vas4-.+hy-Y� e/ra tS« sE-.ta.aatd p;a sra s•.a. J eti.ade ^a.."t d r. �s Seia hrLu-i. - - b.vdp-a'?ayY.rli rlkaLsrt ard.v«•xJYJW E£3ar.<a -.c Pa tsr-'J •d tr1: �Gso!i [. Vaah.ab}n-� ml+eerr ¢rW Teles+*sCY[i, p;.at L[I da.a�M YretY item«-+'.+nvrii srnea.s3-t'q t:[¢�[+a Ce Aearpndax.[xF,Y Y (-vew +�' za rmdsi'a rd c�-fr-yre a.x.t5 b.^•JW=.Jr� y$, [x'aaaa,f aM rad�lsfb.ur�.4-durrthySCl moa TY s,.>LtJ V=Wt •'Y YG-.. Tema+xrrr b. bs^t e�.0 kr-+s-�rn daaA a35xn rd'n i-�..rcxd 4.Y ica[rmdli'r.A r..� ..'rsrY ocher reG�a .-�'+. Lc 1`aP--"mdarsr-r(ksrc at✓G�Vi r.x',ea x -j aasm a3a. rg--r--w ,+�trrr.e�eS?l Pyx iv euaa•Jp-yC e*l y>ffi *.•ae.�. a[ -?-aa h=o:rJ- i N nrc�f•i+F<.'.... N•c+c-.e"... Varam.! .-_��-�.-.� .•. 'ri r'r�-r•-^S sat N tratiN F.a^y[.[i ird+.Y f.=l,t9r r —i t', W. ax s: niC•P r.'.owe.r.. tru<-<¢a=.�=.f ca -.s. •,.e»�..*ss-.r.��,.E_= n e«YaTli ret.,atr--e.rm U"r.`-i rrcr:rrr. s -a acrJPr-et orf« x,iw. a e Pra4a d a`e !a-r�-a v,: •7 r irks �"C'•a. si-rcrzal� 3Tr.-�.c+-.srea sd ac?isYCN os -Y N>rh. tb k•.}adCe lrrL�e-Vi]63 F=..[ -aa r+�r-aaatc-olr. r2`A-]25'<vd¢ld-]h•vauhYdv.'4p FrY! t Sol �r-Ixv.arlr,„.nt¢-asvdraafs[�r.•�r-,�rr=�. xa,Yr�.+, n_zrt:do-GY-rrzxcrra.e..a.N frt ef. e+-fisk.:kdex ssfufsf .Y.s+'•-+nT,a s.e tretcsarR� - r�l4Cnl sr e.ldNi•"aFaY•9 e'fk.a rP Taxan .'a al F:isrLa-lgra e+`+a awl ri✓1. sre, cys++ sie•�4 4�4 W Yvbi4rvl r......LL`J p¢t.N rA •e'd C[r d itz, a>• t Cr.-+..Fc.n SQr re,-te14 a gyrT+'s rd l�tlsa wa lrsf iaa Lzr .•14J.s.j',�':e, �-ivrax�kr pJJ[n-,e farms �z:d�. brf p 7..fe£5 lean aN ;e A'a.s E"'+a .za sn'•r¢'-•r[elrya atrt. [-]Hsr-ho V� E>vr.�rre,rsc�...t_s ra:s.�'Jv>�.am.*.rdveaxd'ara-fhaaY�swa'nafos r. rl-aiv6:'x FMri Ova ra_i {ar�aa.aia-.L- [ G �a a -e' caN µley-Y+ra K--..S�ak: t.y Aare. etxuc•+Jp=pa.JNi,a-c¢rniceaF�iVF'P r¢4a-ck a.-rsa±aal� r+. w+d.a-0r 4d...AY*s '.tys.f31:'i w•s'ev:a^le'a-w r�W-..ax Ve*; d -c - aa_i er;mL.--.a.-vY.xYlde3Jh aYc.a,x-a«_.nl rd rr,.al. "•`rnh.:zY p., ahr*aeiv-x.ardati'l-, n3:F'a,'n rs+-+e¢n v`a wA+1 •- �fozrtm d. trn .l rAa; Rs Tela;0."r ¢-pa ra �+JA:�.i �-.mad�a ra aM<v-ar�af wt.ns rtr<i&3ir 4s'a db E a�,4a E .tnrfy�---rflr,Td Sa,rvrfJ P'-P:"till#'�'aa,E-f�ja�r<vel .gaey r:a r.4uf @. r+.ef C-Yleyx a:z srd lrl=CFG4facl rlv':,+SYtb"f+I"�3 fr srTtbe+'v aM •rx aha:h'�' xE'�t«r'4m�..;.a-c� �to-aal.4 eta -sac - m4�v-a'r>.t-�li.a rs...n, c•rrac.Ly±t r^sdaMu a-sxa r.m:.:.�*.nrw+.: w'*'•r wcr^, .„.. egr,:,,ra=i. d.aexY a�garr; r.:t --uk�-'e; a..rr�.Yrse�x[aM[�ik ae�vY E'-iesar�c*:..i ca.raio45vTa a�-Ra srs_iJ .i[".+•a r=L4 r -s S<4rc/F�, - _ Fr�+c-rd[afu9nmlar YS F.avidc'-a' aaT va iv'snn�rrc�rtaa [a�ahyxl CrSmap=fr.«M.f lt1 4-133 •�r.Sa_cS'--dFs-- m�v>z-rry+.rW ...«...a3G. rR 1`zr.rm•J F':MsirT F^-afa aana la a4ri r r'fa P]Gl eanm i+'+Yra Er fzv rr�'�•P.sd{r-Jva'a'A vsrv.yu r�a+c�esr�. B1±5*aa h:aT•l da�a3 �.do.cma'aa”<,I cr b.rvft+4e 4+vitrfc alsraACTi 331 tra.rt Pe an+dJ f :ywt as �.aY r-�.-S.a3{a •_tba a.:a•f �efc�ri pq n E.M dF.g azi.�.t'1c![a.�.a�342�arrrF,�vatlre�nrasuga�rwfr.r*y 4r.dd.c'=-r'�+'r. k•=+=+lar"al m�'s�d.eaVl-a"e..eatl ....r.rs �Ux:3rr l•�aL:is.�.-'+Sll ry E-..ct:aii u`-'.-eio�+via. a - =i<rd>=.J Fla r:aa pr..Je.•rYJ<arda �.iT{asx NM]anratiW kx4rrnPr Ta bc4ra GA'hra csalH-`-1s.4., 4-s-.ra➢-C Ad++.oF ri>t7'=:..?arF`t.�Z}H-. s!�:t-�adr4r�r.eP-tea cera eaartrrrrx «a fr. a--p�'L.�s., hsxs�n l>s�tl e-.ri.•Yr[�1rrt-.r E,.�[rr c�rrar-n-wa+r.,e.--tr, raw,f.e�M...�aw-r-�•�[�s-c 7a trt« ra rsr.>•J �-se7., C:+M ra-rv®a Jnry-al recd. bar.d•abaa bra-�•.-A+!'4, r.:ta,-d taar4 *.a -e- .n rralo»Jta , oaf r-Ficwr a i. Ca. S':a-til lc-. ir�rrrtrilaw�.�'.4 af.1. �e-�-v.P. z,i rczvJJ.�. r -G m:: rNalra:: !`G'=. -ea-J is Fx�xl:-Ye�I re.S.�I+Se:LftA1.5'+CI rzad �•te-gra,r.-asc.�Rrv.,�wrs.nas-sn.-[tcr«au��.: ��-�., -pa lcla, x'«.«,'rP tYPim•.a rTSc>--I ra4�sl csaGaacarLa cr.vbca �lrlca ahrri f,:aa-:. wrrcuer,i-�.'aa s-lK^.s.a: uiar_+rrs,,.�sa>ea�cr--F>s ralr frrR. =irca Fk•n 4Vfreir-,ea �hra r�sr--i V..—�r,a atl-a'r;.-fsY�.s o-.•e.-sv J: 0:a�x+rd a>-nssre2 eF.ua eiu-r--a].ryfiY:rN_s wde tcFfr (�rb a ra:¢atlrax..cf psdt•_, a, irYri �l1[sw Faso o^.'rr�r-Slryea+nacxnbtrn.✓.i va f+a.ra M_'. ra�acV ma+:•STl•.:F FlsYsa a�a-a i, pv rr� :l rEt.,.Fs«yi ba l: 'i ,. _.s,W-Y frs¢crJ LLcadrY4Y_ P199 VI.A. 4 0 s! z 2 4 VI.A. EXHIBIT 730 E. Cooper, LLC 2001 N. Halsted, Suite 301 Chicago, 1L 60614 October 16, 2014 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Easterly 9.27 feet of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing as Manager of 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, which is the ground lessee of the above Property and owner of the improvements located oil the Property. In its capacity as ground lessee of the Property, 730 E. Cooper, LLC desires to apply for, pursue and obtain at its own expense the City of Aspen's approval of certain proposed modifications to the improvements currently located on the Property. This letter shall confirm that 730 E. Cooper, LLC authorizes Maas Land Planning, LLC, Camburas & Theodore, LTD, and Centaur to apply for, pursue acid obtain the City of Aspen's approval of modifications to the improvements currently located on the Property, which approvals may include but not be limited to a building permit, mechanical permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit demolition permit, Planning and Zoning Commission approval, Historic Preservation Committee approval, City Council approval, variances, and any other approvals and land use approvals which may be required by the City of Aspen. Please contact the undersigned with any questions. 730 E. Coope) -1,C, a Colorado Its: Manager Hunt P200 liability company VI.A. P201 V I.A. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (" City") and Property 730 E. Cooper, LLC, Phone No.:312.850.1680 Owner (°r'): a Colorado limited liability company Email: MHunt9MDEVC0.00M Address of Billing M Development Property., 730 E. Cooper Address: 2001 N. Halsted St. Suite #304 (subject of Aspen, Colorado 81611 (send bills here) Chicago, IIIInO1S 60614 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees armee non-refundable. 1,625 LI flat fee for APCHA (Housing) 1,625 11 flat fee for Environmental He> 1,625 Parks F,_1 0 F-1 Select Review $ flat fee for $ - flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 0 J 400 deposit for 32 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $ 265 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Chris Bendon Community Development Director City use: 15540 Fees Due: $ Received: $ 730 E. Cooper, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: 730 E. toper Manager, Inc., -`Colorado corporation Its: ManaWer / P202 Its: Hunt VI.A. FEE AGREEMENT P203 V I.A. BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST EXHIBIT 715 E HYMAN AVE #18 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST n 2012 TRUST FBI RHODA ISRAEL 2$3 ASPEN LLC 300 SOUTH SPRIN � 708 3RD AVE 4809 CQLE AVE #347 CONDOMINIUM A NEW YORK, NY 10017 DALLAS, TX 75205 211 MIDLAND AVE 501 E SPRINGS RD 819 E HYMAN AVE #7 BASALT, CO 81621 730 DURANT G12 LLC 730 E COOPER LLC 802 EAST COOPER LLC 1233 EDLIN PL 320 W MAIN 3715 S OCEAN BLVD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ASPEN, CO 81611 HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 334873303 803DKS LLC 814 GREYSTONE LLC 834 ASPEN LLC 6601 HUNTERS GLEN RD 300 S POINTE DR #1506 50 S LASALLE ST #B2 DALLAS, TX 75205 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 CHICAGO, IL 60603 ADELSON ANDREW S REV TRUST AJAX INVESTMENTS LLC ALEXANDER THOMAS L PO BOX 810 730 E DURANT AVE 715 E HYMAN AVE #27 KATONAH, NY 10536 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ANDERSON ROBERT M & LOUISE E ART MUSEUM LLC ASPEN ART MUSEUM 1021 23RD ST 3336 E 32ND ST 590 N MILL ST CHETEK, WI 54728 TULSA, OK 74135 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN ASSETS LLC ASPEN KOEPPEL LLC ASPEN LIVING WELL LLC 2519 N MCMULLEN BOTH RD #510-307 3551 ST GAUDENS RD 2517 ROUTE 44 #11-104 CLARWATER, FL 337614173 COCONUT GROVE, FL 331336530 SALT POINT, NY 12578 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN SQUARE VENTURES LLP 730 E DURANT AVE PO BOX 1248 602 E COOPER #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARTLETT KATY I BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST BAUM ROBERT E 715 E HYMAN AVE #18 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST PO BOX 1518 ASPEN, CO 81611-2066 PO BOX 2847 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 NEWPORT 8EAC H, CA 92659 BEAUDETTE PETER C BELKOVA DASHA BELL MTN QUAL RES CONDO ASSOC LLC 501 E SPRINGS RD 819 E HYMAN AVE #7 320 S SPRING ST COLUMBIA, SC 29223 ASPEN, CO 81611-2092 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERKOWITZ ALAN 25% BERKOWITZ KAREN BERSCH BLANCHE TRUST PO BOX 35 PO BOX 826 9642 YOAKUM DR BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022 BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 P204 BESTERFIELD LLC BG SPRING LLC 200 JAMES ST S STE 202 300 S SPRING ST #202 HAMILTON ONTARIO CANADA L8P3A9, ASPEN, CO 81611 BISCHOFF JOHN C 565 CITRUS AVE INPERIAL BEACH, CA 919321111 BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO BORY GEORGE GUSTAVE JR & KRISTINA BOULANGEE ERICA 10509 HUNTING CREST LN DANIELE PO BOX 2596 VIENNA, VA 22192 77 MAPLE AVE S ASPEN, CO 81612 WESTPORT, CT 06880 BOUTON REV TRUST BRADLEY EDWARD JR 1170 SACRAMENTO ST #11A CIO [MAC INC SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941081967 263 80TH ST BROOKLYN, NY 11209 BUYERS BRUCE CALCI RAYMOND D 835 E HYMAN AVE #K 134 TEWKESBURY RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 CARRILLO ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST CARVER RUTH A & MARTIN G 236 HENRY ST #6 116 S ASPEN ST BROOKLYN, NY 11201 ASPEN, CO 81611 CCI -ASPEN I LP CHAIKEN WILLIAM 800 BRAZOS ST STE 600 2030 S OCEAN DR APT 1723 AUSTIN, TX 78701 HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009-6614 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC 630 E COOPER AVE 600 E HOPKINS AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WAR LLC CLARY EDGAR D IV 2514 LAKE MEAD DR 715 E HYMAN AVE #9 LAFAYETTE, CO 80026 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLBY WARD COLOSI THOMAS W 715 E HYMAN #20 715 E HYMAN AVE APT 6 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2099 COOPER SPRINGS LLC CORREIA JOHN E 4 EASTON OVAL 6730 E NORTHEAST HWY COLUMBUS, OH 43219 DALLAS, TX 75231 P205 VI.A. BRONSON RICHARD L TRUST 50% 4510 NE DELAMAR PL LEES SUMMIT, MO 64064 CALHOON THOMAS C 315 LAVACA ST AUSTIN, TX 787013036 CAVES KAREN W 1 BARRENGER CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHAMBERS JOHN TRUST 50% CHAMBERS CHRISTINE TRUST 50% 1357 OCEAN BLVD #406 STUART, FL 34996 CITY MARKET INC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FL CINCINNATI, OH 45202 CM LLC CIO ROGER MAROLT 230 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COMBO VENTURE LLC 2828 N HARWOOD ST #1700 DALLAS, TX 75201 CROCKETT RUFUS PO BOX 3837 ASPEN, CO 81612 V I.A. CWG HOLDINGS LLC DAILY CONNIE M DALY CAROL Y REV TRUST 864 MOORE DR 715 E HYMAN AVE #14 617 E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAMASO PAULA M TRUST DANIELE ROBIN DANTE CANDI PO BOX 1225 PO BOX 1023 19562 EMBASSY CT ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 N MIAMI BEACH, FL 33179 DAVIS ALTON T REVOCABLE TRUST DAVIS HARRIET S & MARTIN DECK WARREN PRESTON LIVING TRUST 30543 THE GOLF CLUB POINT 835 E HYMAN AVE APT G 5363 S LAMAR ST EVERGREEN, CO 80439 ASPEN, CO 81611-2603 LITTLETON, CO 80123 DEVINE RALPH R DIBRELL CHARLES G JR & FRANCES DODEA NICHOLAS T 715 E HYMAN 013 24 ADLER CIR 715 E HYMAN AVE #19 ASPEN, CO 81611 GALVESTON, TX 77551-5828 ASPEN, CO 81 61 1-2063 DURANT AH LLC DURANT MALL CONDO ASSOC DURANT MALL PROP LLC PO BOX 4068 1000 DOLORES WAY #B 39 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR ASPEN, CO 81612 CARBONDALE, CO 816232251 ASPEN, CO 81611 EAST DURANT LLC ECCHYMOSIS LLC ELLERON CHEMICALS CORP 323 N PACIFIC COAST HWY 4802 E 2ND ST # 2 2101 WAUKEGAN RD #210 SOLANA BEACH, CA 920751130 LONG BEACH, CA 90803 BANNOCKBURN, IL 60015 EQUITUS CAPITAL LLC ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR & CLAUDE ESENJAY OIL & GAS LTD 864 MOORE DR PO BOX 4316 500 N WATER ST #1100 SOUTH ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78471 ETTLIN ROSS L FAATH CARLOS M & MOLLY G FEHR EDITH B REVOCABLE TRUST 715 E HYMAN AVE # 7 715 E HYMAN AVE 41 543 FOX RUN DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-8502 FERRY JAMES H III FIGHTLIN JONATHAN D FLY MARIE N BOX 166 715 E HYMAN #46 7447 PEBBLE POINTE GLENCOE, IL 600220166 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322 FODOR BARBARA LOWE & PETER BELA- FORD JOHN STEPHEN JR DADA 777 REV LIVING TRUST 40% 2280 CENTURY HL 1500 N POST OAK RD #190 PO BOX 2061 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 HOUSTON, TX 77055 ASPEN, CO 81612 P206 VI.A. GAUBA ALENA GILBERT GARY GLACO PARTNERSHIP 50% 715 E HYMAN AVE #21 1556 ROYAL BLVD 6001 MONTROSE RD, STE 600 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENDALE, CA 91207 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 GODFREY BRUCE FAM TRST 50% GODFREY LESLI L FAM TRST 50% GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 195 RUSSELL RD 1041 S HIGH ST 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA PRINCETON, NJ 08540 DENVER, CO 80209 CHICAGO, IL 60611 GOLDEN PANTHERS LLC GOLDMAN MICHAEL VICTOR & GLORIA GORDON LEONARD & ELLEN 78365 HWY 111 #415 ANNA 12204 GALESVILLE DR LA QUINTA, CA 92253 6919 GLENEAGLE DR GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 TUCSON, AZ 85718 GRAY DALE F REV TRST 20% INT GREWAL JASJIT SINGH GROSFELD ASPEN PROP PART LLC GRAY CHERYL W REV TRST 20% ECHO RIDGE RANCH 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 5921 SEARL TER 1 ECHO CANYON RD LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 BETHESDA, MD 20816 PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 81147 HAYLES THOMAS HEMP SUZANNE LIV TRUST HENDRICKS SIDNEY J 715 E HYMAN AVE #5 15470 POMONA RD YOLANDE EVERHARD ASPEN, CO 81611 BROOKFIELD, WI 53005 6614 LAKE VILLE RD PETALUMA, CA 94954-9256 HEWINS SAMUEL HIMAN LLC HOFFMAN FRANCIS P 715 E HYMAN AVE #23 PO BOX 6159 7577 FOREST BEACH RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 WATERVLIET, MI 49098-8304 AUSTRALIA, HUGHES S EMILE HUNKE CARLTON J LVG TRST HUNT SARAN J 404 PARK AVE #10 408 N 1 ST ST #507 715 E HYMAN AVE #22 ASPEN, CO 81611 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 ASPEN, CO 81611 IACONO FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC IDS PARTNERS LLC ISRAEL KENNETH 5845 E PLACITA DE LA ZUERENCIA PO BOX 642 615 OCEAN BLVD TUCSON, AZ 85750-1242 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160 JACOBY JON E M JOFFE LIVING TRUST JOHNSON BARBARA WEAVER TRUST CIO THE STEPHENS GROUP LLC 23820 LONG VALLEY RD PO BOX 3570 PO 'BOX 3417 HIDDEN HILLS, CA 91302 LAS CRUCES, NM 88003 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 JOSEPH KRISTA JOSHUA & CO JOYCE EDWARD 4815 E CAREFREE HWY #108-468 300 S HUNTER ST 1310 RITCHIE CT CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 P207 V I.A. KANTAS NICOLETTE 715 E HYMAN AVE #15 ASPEN, CO 81611 KENNEDY JUSTIN 5001 HAMMOCK LAKE DR MIAMI, FL 331562221 KOUTSOUBOS LOUIS PO BOX 9199 ASPEN, CO 81612 KRAJIAN RON 617 E COOPER AVE #114 ASPEN, CO 81611 LANDIS JOSHUA B 715 E HYMAN AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEINER MICHAEL & ROSE ANN PO BOX 11539 ASPEN, CO 81612 LIEB MADELINE TRUST 800 E HYMAN AVE #A ASPEN, CO 81611 M & M INVESTMENTS 679 BRUSH CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 MATTHEWS ZACHARY PO BOX 10582 ASPEN, CO 81612 KASHINSKI MICHAEL R KEATING R MARK TRUST 12/01/2012 715 E HYMAN AVE #2 214 GLENMOOR RD ASPEN, CO 81611 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 KLIKA YVONNE TRUST KOEPPEL KEVIN F 1551 LARIMER ST #1303 4150 PARK AVE DENVER, CO 80201631 MIAMI, FL 33133 KOUTSOUBOS TED KOVACH MARY SUSAN 430 E HYMAN AVE #PH 1422 N LASALLE DR #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 606106416 KRANS ROSEMARY KUTINSKY BRIAN 298 4TH AVE #429 26480 NORMANDY RD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118 FRANKLIN, MI 480251034 LANDRY ELIZABETH J LEINER MICHAEL PO BOX 3036 PO BOX 11539 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEVITT JEANNE S REV TRST 49% LIBERATORE DOUGLAS 6001 MONTROSE RD # 600 PO BOX 1838 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 SARASOTA, FL 34230 LIVINGSTON DAVID R LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST 7100 GLADYS DR SE BOX 3849 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546 ASPEN, CO 81612 M CUBED HOLDINGS LLC MAL REV TRUST .25% PO BOX 9667 CIO NELLIS CORP ASPEN, CO 81612 6001 MONTOSE RD #600 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 MANNING CHRISTOPHER REID MARTELL BARBARA 431 GRACE CHURCH ST 702 E HYMAN AVE RYE, NY 10580 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAVROVIC ERNA MAYER WILLIAM E 530 E 72ND ST APT 15-C PO BOX 4462 NEW YORK, NY 10021 ASPEN, CO 81612 e. VI.A. MAYFAIR INVESTMENTS LLC MAYLE KENNETH D MCATAMNEY JEANNE TRUST PO BOX 268 715 E HYMAN AVE #3 639 SPRUCE ST RICHMOND VICTORIA 3121 ASPEN, CO 81 61 1-2063 WINNETKA, IL 60093 AUSTRALIA, MCLAUGHLIN WILLIAM R & MARTHA S MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN MIKI 4925 MINNEAPOLIS AVE 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD PO BOX 444 MOUND, MN 553649766 MOSMAN NSW 2088 ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTRALIA, MJM AMENDED & RESTATED TRUST MJM HOLDINGS II LLC MOEN DONNE & ELIZABETH FAM TRUST 1776 SOUTH LN 1701 GOLF RD 8 CABALLEROS RD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 TOWER 3 STE 203 ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 ROLLING MEADOWS, IL 60008 N S N ASSOCIATES INC NAP2HOLDINGS LLC NETHERY BRUCE 11051 W ADDISON ST PO BOX 8907 715 E HYMAN AVE #25 FRANKLIN PARK, IL 60131 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 NEUMANN MICHAEL NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D OATES WILLIAM D & B MARILYN 7381 MOHASNIC DR 501 S FAIRFAX 4900 LAKESIDE DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 DALLAS, TX 75205 OBERHOLTZER JORDAN OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN PACIFIC WEST INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 10582 PO BOX 514 320 MARTIN ST #100 ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 BIRMINGHAM, MI 480091485 PARTRIDGE JAMES J & JEAN C PEARSON REBECCA J PERRY JAMES H & MARGERY DEUTZ 361 N AWAHNEE RD 1610 JOHNSON DR PO BOX 3382 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 STILLWATER, MN 55082 ASPEN, CO 81612-3382 PETERSON CHRISPY & JAMES E PLATINUM GLOBAL VENTURES LLC POAG COMPANY LLC 867 HAVEN CREST CT NORTH 344 PROSPECT ST #D PO BOX 9316 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 GREENSBOW, NC 27429 POLICARO JOANNA POLLOCK RANDALL LLC PORTE BROOKE 4311 RANDMORE RD PO BOX 950 3520 PADDOCK RD COLUMBUS, OH 43220 ASPEN, CO 81612 WESTON, FL 33331 PRICE GAIL PT HOLDINGS II LLC 715 E HYMAN AVE #10 MIDLAND PROPERTIES INC ASPEN, CO 81611 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #200 MISSION, KS 66205 P209 RAHLEK LTD AT BANK OF AMERICA 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD HOUSTON, TX 77025 V I.A. RAYMOND KIMBERLY RED FLOWER PROP CO PTNSHP REICH DANIEL S TRUST 20% 1280 S UTE AVE #5 575 MADISON AVE #1006 6 RINCON ST ASPEN, CO 816112259 NEW YORK, NY 100222511 IRVINE, CA 92702 REICH MELVIN L TRUST 80% REUSS LIGHT LLC ROBINSON F GEORGE JR 4609 SEASHORE DR PO BOX 5000 PO BOX 7906 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROGERS RICHARD R ROSS JOHN F RUBENSTEIN ALAN B & CAROL S 16251 DALLAS PKWY 7600 CLAYTON RD 57 OLDFIELD DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ST LOUIS, MO 63117 SHERBORN, MA 01770 RUDD WAYNE RUST TRUST RYERSON GEORGE W JR 132 PARK AVE 233 S BEVERLY DR#B 715 E HYMAN AVE #17 BASALT, CO 81621 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902123896 ASPEN, CO 81611 S & S REALTY PARTNERS LLC SAGARIA SABATO DOMINIC I[I SAHN KAREN R 25 BOND ST #4W 756 GREENWICH ST 715 E HYMAN AVE #11 NEW YORK, NY 10012 NEW YORK, NY 10014 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 SAHR KAREN M SANDIFER C W JR TRUST 50% SATKUNAS THOMAS P 715 E HYMAN AVE #8 240 LINDEN DR 0096 HOPI ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80304 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 SB -H FAMILY 1 LLC SCHARIN JOHN SCOTT SCHEUERMAN JOANNE E 0316 PFISTER DR 715 E HYMAN AVE #11 200 LOCUST ST #23A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L SCHNURMAN ALAN J & JUDITH SCHUBINER CRAIG E 2100 MCKINNEY AVE #1760 870 UNITED NATIONS PLZ STE 20E PO BOX 7067 DALLAS, TX 75201 NEW YORK, NY 10017 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 SEAY GERALD R SEGUIN JEFF W& MADALYN B TRUST SEGUIN WILLIAM L & MARILYN A 320 TANGIER AVE 617 E COOPER #412 PO BOX 4274 PALM BEACH, FL 334803518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816124274 SESTIC ZORAN SHACKELFORD MARK SHAPIRO LAND LLC 530 E MAIN ST LOWER LEVEL 805 E COOPER AVE #5 2438 JUNIPER HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 P210 SHAPIRO REGINA 14024 MONTRACHET LN TOWN & COUNTRY, MO 63017 SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 DALLAS, TX 75201 SMART EDWIN J 2009 MARKET ST DENVER, CO 80205-2022 STERLING TRUST COMP 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 TREUER CHRISTIN L 5455 LANDMARKL PL #814 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 801111955 VALERIO JAMES & LANETTE PO BOX 1376 ASPEN, CO 81612 WALLEN-OSTERAA REV LIVING TRUST 36 OCEAN VISTA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NATERS JOSEPH D & LESLIE T 150 S ORIGINAL ST #2 4SPEN, CO 816112073 NEIGAND BROTHERS LLC 150 N MARKET NICHITA, KS 67202 NILLIAMSON CHERYL EXEMPT TRUST 30% ?717 OLIVE AVE NW NASHINGTON, DC 20007 SHIFRIN GEORGE PO BOX 3434 BASALT, CO 81621 SILVERBELL RENTALS LLC 1500 N POST OAK RD #190 HOUSTON, TX 77055 SMITH ALICIA M 715 E HYMAN AVE #16 ASPEN, CO 81611 TERMINELLO DENNIS J & KERRY L 656 RIDGEWAY WHITE PLAINS, NY 10605-4323 TROSS BETH L REV TRUST .25% CIO NELLIS CORP 6001 MONTOSE RD #600 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 VARADY LOTHAR & CHERYL TRUST 5036 MAUNALANI CIR HONOLULU, HI 96816 WALLING REBECCA 350 BLANCA AVE TAMPA, FL 33606 WEBB MARSHALL B ASPEN QPRT 53 OSPREY CIR CALLAWASSIE ISLAND OKATIE, SC 29909 WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T TRUST 100 N TRYON ST 47TH FLR CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 WILSON JOSEPH B UND 50% INT 39 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR ASPEN, CO 81611 P211 VI.A. SHUMATE ASPEN LLC 421 AABC #G ASPEN, CO 81611 SKLAR LEONARD E 132 NW 93RD AVE #103 BLDG #2 PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33024 SOUTHEAST HARBOR FARMS LLLP 51 ARCH WAY CALISTOGA, CA 94515 THOMPSON RICHARD P 408 15TH AVE SOUTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250 TWO SEASONS HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 2768 ASPEN, CO 81612 VALISE FAMILY TRUST 3020 PLAZA DE MONTE LAS VEGAS, NV 89102 WARNKEN MARK G 8614 QUARRY RIDGE LN #A ST PAUL, MN 551255503 WEIDEL LAWRENCE W PO BOX 1007 MONROE, GA 30655 WILLIAMS CRAIG & LEE FAM PTNRSHP 5577 CEDAR CREEK HOUSTON, TX 77056 WISE JOSEPH 1320 HODGES ST RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 V I.A. WM SNOWMASS LLC 500 FIFTH AVE #2440 NEW YORK, NY 10110 YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST PO BOX 12347 ASPEN, CO 81612 �Wvim AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE EXHIBIT REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: —13p 2_� Cdo 0 o f A-" Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: c o r-�O\J ke rt,—> 4-'20a,„n 20LLk- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Deelopment Department, which.contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2)'of the:Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage :p epaiZl U'S:'snail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the y.t Ua r .property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of is y a`property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they 4t aa4 ' a eared,no,inore than sixty 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. A and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate'Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current r tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this'notice requirement. . Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient_legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours,for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 3C)day Of C A7A s6 — , 20_kkJ,,, by �c PUBLIC NOTICE BE:730 EAST COOPER AVE-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT REVIEW COMMERCIALDESIGNREVIEW CONCEPTUAL,, WITNESS vHAND ANDC'I FIC IAL JE11 GROWTH MANAGEMENT WAIVERS and VARIA T,f 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEM N that a publichearing- y commission expires. swill be held on Tuesday,November 18,2014,at a! / -meeting to beg'n at 4:30 p.m.before the Aspen.; Remaing antl Zoning Commission,Sister Cities "Meeting Room;City Hell,130 u Galena SL,Ad-, pas to consider an application submitted etl by 730 E.. Cooper LLC,for the is by it located at 730 LanaE. s Cooper Ave.,represented by Mitch Haas s Haas Notary Public prov Planning,LLC The applicant requests tso-hree f story to above grade the propertywithro f new three --- story a nt le grade bprojIng with s of deck and ENOTARY EN REED PATTERSON basement level. The project proposes lotlga and commercial uses. Planned Development Project NOTARY PUBLIC Review,Conceptual Commercial Design Stan- carJs Review,Growth Management,Waiver and STATE OF COLORADO Variances are requested The requested develop mens approvals associated with this application ID#19964002767 may be modified by the approving body. Tha ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE' RIm15510n Expires FebNa t5,20th property,is legally described as the easterly 9.2] py fee of Lot O,and all of Lots R and S,Block 105, City and Townsile of Aspen, Parcel ID 'SI-EPUBLICATION 2]3]-182-27-004 and 2]3]-182-27-904 For fur-' Cher information,contact Sara Adams at the City of(PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Aspen Community Development Department,1301 S.Galena SL,Aspen,COi970j 429.2778,E 0WNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NO S.Galena St.,Aspen con. a/LJ Engamer Chelr Aspen Planning antl Zoning Commission Published in the Aspan Times an October 30,2014 T CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE nos§9B3sj - - tED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 I RECEIVED NOV 18 2014 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OP ASPEN REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND US"NUL&Ipr DEVELOPMENT ADD S F PROPERTY-.4., �3 Aspen, CO a SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE- / ? ATE:/ ? 20a�' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin l ) //// / /� I, v�G�J )b(wbs( r/' tftfC�/ (J��f'�R /�J (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Sail notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 3/ day of 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice-(sign):is attached hereto. f JIiWI� f..�r,•y i Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained,fr6mi the'Community Development Department, which contains the' info`rmatibn-described'in'Secfion 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property J P property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) A Mineral Estate Om,ner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Si atur The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me thisday ofl�oyemkaur 20 by Jod1 JTPvhs� BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO y NOTARY b LOR 42687 M commission expires: .�• Jl MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 11.2017 R , Notary c ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 730 EAST COOPERAVE—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT REVIEW, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW CONCEPTUAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, WAIVERS and VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,November 18, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 730 E. Cooper LLC, for the property located at 730 E. Cooper Ave., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC. The applicant requests approval to redevelop the property with a new three story above grade building with roof deck and basement level. The project proposes lodge and commercial uses. Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Standards Review, Growth Management, Waiver and Variances are requested. The requested development approvals associated with this application may be modified by the approving body. The property is legally described as the easterly 9.27 fee of Lot Q, and all of Lots R and S, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel ID 2737-182-27-004 and 2737-182-27-904. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com. s/LJ Erspamer,Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 30, 2014 City of Aspen Account 2012 TRUST FBI RHODA ISRAEL 283 ASPEN LLC 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET 708 3RD AVE 4809 COLE AVE#347 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NEW YORK, NY 10017 DALLAS,TX 75205 211 MIDLAND AVE#201 BASALT, CO 81621 730 DURANT G12 LLC 730 E COOPER LLC 802 EAST COOPER LLC 1233 EDLIN PL 320 W MAIN 3715 S OCEAN BLVD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ASPEN, CO 81611 HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 334873303 803DKS LLC 814 GREYSTONE LLC 834 ASPEN LLC 6601 HUNTERS GLEN RD 300 S POINTE DR#1506 50 S LASALLE ST#B2 DALLAS,TX 75205 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 CHICAGO, IL 60603 ADELSON ANDREW S REV TRUST AJAX INVESTMENTS LLC ALEXANDER THOMAS L PO BOX 810 730 E DURANT AVE 715 E HYMAN AVE#27 KATONAH, NY 10536 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ANDERSON ROBERT M 8 LOUISE E ART MUSEUM LLC ASPEN ART MUSEUM 1021 23RD ST 3336 E 32ND ST 590 N MILL ST CHETEK,WI 54728 TULSA,OK 74135 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN ASSETS LLC ASPEN KOEPPEL LLC ASPEN LIVING WELL LLC 2519 N MCMULLEN BOTH RD#510-307 3551 ST GAUDENS RD 2517 ROUTE 44#11-104 CLARWATER, FL 337614173 COCONUT GROVE, FL 331336530 SALT POINT, NY 12578 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN SQUARE VENTURES LLP 730 E DURANT AVE PO BOX 1248 602 E COOPER#202 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARTLETT KATY I BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST BAUM ROBERT E 715 E HYMAN AVE#18 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST PO BOX 1518 ASPEN, CO 81611-2066 PO BOX 2847 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BEAUDETTE PETER C BELKOVA DASHA BELL MTN QUAL RES CONDO ASSOC 501 E SPRINGS RD 819 E HYMAN AVE#7 LLC COLUMBIA, SC 29223 ASPEN, CO 81611-2092 320 S SPRING ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BERKOWITZ ALAN 25% BERKOWITZ KAREN BERSCH BLANCHE TRUST PO BOX 35 PO BOX 826 9642 YOAKUM DR BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022 BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 BESTERFIELD LLC BG SPRING LLC BISCHOFF JOHN C 200 JAMES ST S STE 202 300 S SPRING ST#202 565 CITRUS AVE HAMILTON ONTARIO CANADA ASPEN, CO 81611 INPERIAL BEACH, CA 919321111 L8P3A9, BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO BORY GEORGE GUSTAVE JR& BOULANGEE ERICA 10509 HUNTING CREST LN KRISTINA DANIELE PO BOX 2596 VIENNA,VA 22192 77 MAPLE AVE S ASPEN, CO 81612 WESTPORT, CT 06880 BOUTON REV TRUST BRADLEY EDWARD JR BRONSON RICHARD L TRUST 50% 1170 SACRAMENTO ST#11A C/O IMAC INC 4510 NE DELAMAR PL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941081967 263 80TH ST - LEES SUMMIT, MO 64064 BROOKLYN, NY 11209 BUYERS BRUCE CALGI RAYMOND D CALHOON THOMAS C 835 E HYMAN AVE#K 134 TEWKESBURY RD 315 LAVACA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 AUSTIN,TX 787013036 CARRILLO ASSET MANAGEMENT CARVER RUTH A& MARTIN G CAVES KAREN W TRUST 116 S ASPEN ST 1 BARRENGER CT 236 HENRY ST#6 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BROOKLYN, NY 11201 CCI-ASPEN I LP CHAIKEN WILLIAM CHAMBERS JOHN TRUST 50% 800 BRAZOS ST STE 600 2030 S OCEAN DR APT 1723 CHAMBERS CHRISTINE TRUST 50% AUSTIN, TX 78701 HALLANDALE BEACH, FL 33009-6614 1357 OCEAN BLVD#406 STUART, FL 34996 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC CITY MARKET INC 630 E COOPER AVE 600 E HOPKINS AVE#203 1014 VINE ST 7TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 CJAR LLC CLARY EDGAR D IV CM LLC 2514 LAKE MEAD DR 715 E HYMAN AVE#9 C/O ROGER MAROLT LAFAYETTE, CO 80026 ASPEN, CO 81611 230 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 COLBY WARD COLOSI THOMAS W COMBO VENTURE LLC 715 E HYMAN#20 715 E HYMAN AVE APT 6 2828 N HARWOOD ST#1700 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2099 DALLAS,TX 75201 COOPER SPRINGS LLC CORREIA JOHN E CROCKETT RUFUS 4 EASTON OVAL 6730 E NORTHEAST HWY PO BOX 3837 COLUMBUS, OH 43219 DALLAS,TX 75231 ASPEN, CO 81612 CWG HOLDINGS LLC DAILY CONNIE M DALY CAROL Y REV TRUST 864 MOORE DR 715 E HYMAN AVE#14 617 E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAMASO PAULA M TRUST DANIELE ROBIN DANTE CANDI PO BOX 1225 PO BOX 1023 19562 EMBASSY CT ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 N MIAMI BEACH, FL 33179 DAVIS ALTON T REVOCABLE TRUST DAVIS HARRIET S& MARTIN DECK WARREN PRESTON LIVING 30543 THE GOLF CLUB POINT 835 E HYMAN AVE APT G TRUST EVERGREEN, CO 80439 ASPEN, CO 81611-2603 5363 S LAMAR ST LITTLETON,CO 80123 DEVINE RALPH R DIBRELL CHARLES G JR & FRANCES DODEA NICHOLAS T 715 E HYMAN #13 24 ADLER CIR 715 E HYMAN AVE#19 ASPEN, CO 81611 GALVESTON,TX 77551-5828 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 DURANT AH LLC DURANT MALL CONDO ASSOC DURANT MALL PROP LLC PO BOX 4068 1000 DOLORES WAY#B 39 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR ASPEN, CO 81612 CARBONDALE, CO 816232251 ASPEN, CO 81611 EAST DURANT LLC ECCHYMOSIS LLC ELLERON CHEMICALS CORP 323 N PACIFIC COAST HWY 4802 E 2ND ST#2 2101 WAUKEGAN RD#210 SOLANA BEACH, CA 920751130 LONG BEACH, CA 90803 BANNOCKBURN, IL 60015 EQUITUS CAPITAL LLC ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR&CLAUDE ESENJAY OIL&GAS LTD 864 MOORE DR PO BOX 4316 500 N WATER ST#1100 SOUTH ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CORPUS CHRISTI,TX 78471 ETTLIN ROSS L FAATH CARLOS M & MOLLY G FEHR EDITH B REVOCABLE TRUST 715 E HYMAN AVE#7 715 E HYMAN AVE#1 543 FOX RUN DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-8502 FERRY JAMES H III FIGHTLIN JONATHAN D FLY MARIE N BOX 166 715 E HYMAN#46 7447 PEBBLE POINTE GLENCOE, IL 600220166 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322 FODOR BARBARA LOWE&PETER FORD JOHN STEPHEN JR GADA 777 REV LIVING TRUST 40% BELA- 1500 N POST OAK RD#190 PO BOX 2061 2280 CENTURY HL HOUSTON, TX 77055 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 GAUBA ALENA GILBERT GARY GLACO PARTNERSHIP 50% 715 E HYMAN AVE#21 1556 ROYAL BLVD 6001 MONTROSE RD, STE 600 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENDALE, CA 91207 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 GODFREY BRUCE FAM TRST 50% GODFREY LESLI L FAM TRST 50% GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 195 RUSSELL RD 1041 S HIGH ST 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA PRINCETON, NJ 08540 DENVER, CO 80209 CHICAGO, IL 60611 GOLDEN PANTHERS LLC GOLDMAN MICHAEL VICTOR&GLORIA GORDON LEONARD & ELLEN 78365 HWY 111 #415 ANNA 12204 GALESVILLE DR LA QUINTA, CA 92253 6919 GLENEAGLE DR GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878 TUCSON,AZ 85718 GRAY DALE F REV TRST 20% INT GREWAL JASJIT SINGH GROSFELD ASPEN PROP PART LLC GRAY CHERYL W REV TRST 20% ECHO RIDGE RANCH 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD#2222 5921 SEARL TER 1 ECHO CANYON RD LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 BETHESDA, MD 20816 PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 81147 HAYLES THOMAS HEMP SUZANNE LIV TRUST HENDRICKS SIDNEY J 715 E HYMAN AVE#5 15470 POMONA RD YOLANDE EVERHARD ASPEN, CO 81611 BROOKFIELD,WI 53005 6614 LAKE VILLE RD PETALUMA, CA 94954-9256 HEWINS SAMUEL HIMAN LLC HOFFMAN FRANCIS P 715 E HYMAN AVE#23 PO BOX 6159 7577 FOREST BEACH RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 WATERVLIET, MI 49098-8304 AUSTRALIA, HUGHES S EMILE HUNKE CARLTON J LVG TRST HUNT SARAH J 404 PARK AVE#10 408 N 1 ST ST#507 715 E HYMAN AVE #22 ASPEN, CO 81611 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 ASPEN, CO 81611 IACONO FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC IDS PARTNERS LLC ISRAEL KENNETH 5845 E PLACITA DE LA ZUERENCIA PO BOX 642 615 OCEAN BLVD TUCSON,AZ 85750-1242 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160 JACOBY JON E M JOFFE LIVING TRUST JOHNSON BARBARA WEAVER TRUST C/O THE STEPHENS GROUP LLC 23820 LONG VALLEY RD PO BOX 3570 PO BOX 3417 HIDDEN HILLS, CA 91302 LAS CRUCES, NM 88003 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 JOSEPH KRISTA JOSHUA& CO JOYCE EDWARD 4815 E CAREFREE HWY#108-468 300 S HUNTER ST 1310 RITCHIE CT CAVE CREEK,AZ 85331 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 KANTAS NICOLETTE KASHINSKI MICHAEL R KEATING R MARK TRUST 12/01/2012 715 E HYMAN AVE#15 715 E HYMAN AVE#2 214 GLENMOOR RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 KENNEDY JUSTIN KLIKA YVONNE TRUST KOEPPEL KEVIN F 5001 HAMMOCK LAKE DR 1551 LARIMER ST#1303 4150 PARK AVE MIAMI, FL 331562221 DENVER, CO 80201631 MIAMI, FL 33133 KOUTSOUBOS LOUIS KOUTSOUBOS TED KOVACH MARY SUSAN PO BOX 9199 430 E HYMAN AVE#PH 1422 N LASALLE DR#101 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 606106416 KRAJIAN RON KRANS ROSEMARY KUTINSKY BRIAN 617 E COOPER AVE#114 298 4TH AVE#429 26480 NORMANDY RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118 FRANKLIN, MI 480251034 LANDIS JOSHUA B LANDRY ELIZABETH J LEINER MICHAEL 715 E HYMAN AVE#4 PO BOX 3036 PO BOX 11539 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEINER MICHAEL& ROSE ANN LEVITT JEANNE S REV TRST 49% LIBERATORE DOUGLAS PO BOX 11539 6001 MONTROSE RD#600 PO BOX 1838 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 SARASOTA, FL 34230 LIEB MADELINE TRUST LIVINGSTON DAVID R LONG MONA HAYLES TRUST 800 E HYMAN AVE#A 7100 GLADYS DR SE BOX 3849 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546 ASPEN, CO 81612 M & M INVESTMENTS M CUBED HOLDINGS LLC MAL REV TRUST .25% 679 BRUSH CREEK RD PO BOX 9667 C/O NELLIS CORP ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 6001 MONTOSE RD#600 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANNING CHRISTOPHER REID MARTELL BARBARA 317 SIDNEY BAKER S#400 431 GRACE CHURCH ST 702 E HYMAN AVE KERRVILLE,TX 78028 RYE, NY 10580 ASPEN, CO 81611 MATTHEWS ZACHARY MAVROVIC ERNA MAYER WILLIAM E PO BOX 10582 530 E 72ND ST APT 15-C PO BOX 4462 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAYFAIR INVESTMENTS LLC MAYLE KENNETH D MCATAMNEY JEANNE TRUST PO BOX 268 715 E HYMAN AVE#3 639 SPRUCE ST RICHMOND VICTORIA 3121 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 WINNETKA, IL 60093 AUSTRALIA, MCLAUGHLIN WILLIAM R& MARTHA S MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN MIKI 4925 MINNEAPOLIS AVE 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD PO BOX 444 MOUND, MN 553649766 MOSMAN NSW 2088 ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTRALIA, MJM AMENDED & RESTATED TRUST MJM HOLDINGS II LLC MOEN DONNE& ELIZABETH FAM 1776 SOUTH LN 1701 GOLF RD TRUST NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 TOWER 3 STE 203 8 CABALLEROS RD ROLLING MEADOWS, IL 60008 ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 N S N ASSOCIATES INC NAP2HOLDINGS LLC NETHERY BRUCE 11051 W ADDISON ST PO BOX 8907 715 E HYMAN AVE#25 FRANKLIN PARK, IL 60131 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 NEUMANN MICHAEL NIELSON COL STEVE&CAROL D OATES WILLIAM D & B MARILYN 7381 MOHASNIC DR 501 S FAIRFAX 4900 LAKESIDE DR BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 DALLAS,TX 75205 OBERHOLTZER JORDAN OLITSKY TAMAR& STEPHEN PACIFIC WEST INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 10582 PO BOX 514 320 MARTIN ST#100 ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 BIRMINGHAM, MI 480091485 PARTRIDGE JAMES J &JEAN C PEARSON REBECCA J PERRY JAMES H & MARGERY DEUTZ 361 N AWAHNEE RD 1610 JOHNSON DR PO BOX 3382 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 STILLWATER, MN 55082 ASPEN, CO 81612-3382 PETERSON CHRISPY&JAMES E PLATINUM GLOBAL VENTURES LLC POAG COMPANY LLC 867 HAVEN CREST CT NORTH 344 PROSPECT ST#D PO BOX 9316 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 GREENSBOW, NC 27429 POLICARO JOANNA POLLOCK RANDALL LLC PORTE BROOKE 4311 RANDMORE RD PO BOX 950 3520 PADDOCK RD COLUMBUS, OH 43220 ASPEN, CO 81612 WESTON, FL 33331 PRICE GAIL PT HOLDINGS II LLC RAHLEK LTD AT BANK OF AMERICA 715 E HYMAN AVE #10 MIDLAND PROPERTIES INC 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY#200 HOUSTON,TX 77025 MISSION, KS 66205 RAYMOND KIMBERLY A RED FLOWER PROP CO PTNSHP REICH DANIEL S TRUST 20% 1280 S LITE AVE#5 575 MADISON AVE#1006 6 RINCON ST ASPEN, CO 816112259 NEW YORK, NY 100222511 IRVINE, CA 92702 REICH MELVIN L TRUST 80% REUSS LIGHT LLC ROBINSON F GEORGE JR 4609 SEASHORE DR PO BOX 5000 PO BOX 7906 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROGERS RICHARD R ROSS JOHN F RUBENSTEIN ALAN B & CAROL S 16251 DALLAS PKWY 7600 CLAYTON RD 57 OLDFIELD DR ADDISON,TX 75001 ST LOUIS, MO 63117 SHERBORN, MA 01770 RUDD WAYNE RUSTTRUST RYERSON GEORGE WJR 132 PARK AVE 233 S BEVERLY DR#B 715 E HYMAN AVE#17 BASALT,CO 81621 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902123896 ASPEN, CO 81611 S & S REALTY PARTNERS LLC SAGARIA SABATO DOMINIC III SAHN KAREN R 25 BOND ST#4W 756 GREENWICH ST 715 E HYMAN AVE#11 NEW YORK, NY 10012 NEW YORK, NY 10014 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 SAHR KAREN M SANDIFER C W JR TRUST 50% SATKUNAS THOMAS P 715 E HYMAN AVE#8 240 LINDEN DR 0096 HOPI ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80304 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 SB-H FAMILY 1 LLC SCHARIN JOHN SCOTT SCHEUERMAN JOANNE E 0316 PFISTER DR 715 E HYMAN AVE#11 200 LOCUST ST#23A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 SCHNITZER KENNETH L& LISA L SCHNURMAN ALAN J &JUDITH SCHUBINER CRAIG E 2100 MCKINNEY AVE#1760 870 UNITED NATIONS PLZ STE 20E PO BOX 7067 DALLAS, TX 75201 NEW YORK, NY 10017 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 SEAY GERALD R SEGUIN JEFF W& MADALYN B TRUST SEGUIN WILLIAM L&MARILYN A 320 TANGIER AVE 617 E COOPER#412 PO BOX 4274 PALM BEACH, FL 334803518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816124274 SESTIC ZORAN SHACKELFORD MARK SHAPIRO LAND LLC 530 E MAIN ST LOWER LEVEL 805 E COOPER AVE#5 2438 JUNIPER HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAPIRO REGINA SHIFRIN GEORGE SHUMATE ASPEN LLC 14024 MONTRACHET LN PO BOX 3434 421 AABC#G TOWN &COUNTRY, MO 63017 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC SILVERBELL RENTALS LLC SKLAR LEONARD E 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 1500 N POST OAK RD#190 132 NW 93RD AVE#103 BLDG#2 DALLAS,TX 75201 HOUSTON,TX 77055 PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33024 SMART EDWIN J SMITH ALICIA M SOUTHEAST HARBOR FARMS LLLP 2009 MARKET ST 715 E HYMAN AVE#16 51 ARCH WAY DENVER, CO 80205-2022 ASPEN, CO 81611 CALISTOGA, CA 94515 STERLING TRUST COMP TERMINELLO DENNIS J & KERRY L THOMPSON RICHARD P 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD 656 RIDGEWAY 408 15TH AVE SOUTH LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 WHITE PLAINS, NY 10605-4323 JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250 TREUER CHRISTIN L TROSS BETH L REV TRUST .25% TWO SEASONS HOLDINGS LLC 5455 LANDMARKL PL#814 C/O NELLIS CORP PO BOX 2768 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 801111955 6001 MONTOSE RD#600 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 VALERIO JAMES& LANETTE VARADY LOTHAR& CHERYL TRUST VAUSE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 1376 5036 MAUNALANI CIR 3020 PLAZA DE MONTE ASPEN, CO 81612 HONOLULU, HI 96816 LAS VEGAS, NV 89102 WALLEN-OSTERAA REV LIVING TRUST WALLING REBECCA WARNKEN MARK G 36 OCEAN VISTA 350 BLANCA AVE 8614 QUARRY RIDGE LN#A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TAMPA, FL 33606 ST PAUL, MN 551255503 WATERS JOSEPH D& LESLIE T WEBB MARSHALL B ASPEN QPRT WEIDEL LAWRENCE W 450 S ORIGINAL ST#2 53 OSPREY CIR PO BOX 1007 ASPEN, CO 816112073 CALLAWASSIE ISLAND MONROE, GA 30655 OKATIE, SC 29909 WEIGAND BROTHERS LLC WELLS RICHARD A& SUSAN T TRUST WILLIAMS CRAIG& LEE FAM PTNRSHP 150 N MARKET 100 N TRYON ST 47TH FLR 5577 CEDAR CREEK WICHITA, KS 67202 CHARLOTTE, INC 28202 HOUSTON,TX 77056 WILLIAMSON CHERYL EXEMPT TRUST WILSON JOSEPH B UND 50% INT WISE JOSEPH 60% 39 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR 1320 HODGES ST 2717 OLIVE AVE NW ASPEN, CO 81611 RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 !n . r 1 .. \ S V •��N. ✓.�. '�l if 's'ji� ts2P,low 5 _ IV �.,.�♦�n a� � r�t'�,^ ms's fii'."" W' _ , y;J(� • s C I � f _ a i I.rtai .i ♦. ,y�y s ,9. . i.• � k. Y ♦}} tr� vbUqq�� � ���♦ d � fDw�` +i 77, + ♦'� �'. .Y a 'y!,' '�41 ` *�.;���`Rv 851 40./� yr Nlo �, s , wes � Y d'yz� U# � r-'F.�a f 1 t.' 4 � .-♦ C m AZp 1 Wednesday,November 12,2014 1 The Aspen Times E r HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC WORLD & NATION a7 d is holdinga]2ublicoutreacbOPEN HOUSE N $ on behalf of both a Inp o THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 13 14:00 TO 6:00 PM ' 0 1305.GALENA ST. Ijy Zw Sister Cities Meeting Room,basement level ofCiry Hal! • a `\ Z N ; agand., wopn,posed Ind,devel.,son,applirarlom couProhinder rerkw byshe Ci,y • A .. r Z G of proposed lodges are called Base l Lodge and Base 2 Lodge. !) g Q - -- aZ L Base l Lodge is I reday 730E Base2 Lodge is loud at 232 O r Caper Ave( h of E.Cooper F M ' S (northeast corner of s' p W o dS.OriR IJ ( d I pmenro(rhe M' S dM na,ch Sere en)for Z Z cBdkhom Anm ,mpasy redeselopnicro ofthe curicnv Comm e t `,.,, \ �• of O uadwi. e 3 N -p = to Q nyone inrnu ; learning about db..o.bmbofrtL o.d2vsig ebem inch rbr applicant is norrdand mmuagedo,attend, S 3 O > sa = INTERNATIONAL N GIFT FESTIVAL ai p2 >, .o Make a world of difference! E m 11 p E 'il,= Purchase handcrafted,fairly traded home decor, ro Z m O o- personal accessories and jewelry,holiday gifts ' L C O_ i and more at the 28th annual International Gift C:y C N U •-. _ pPrlLf N N d �$ Festival Available through Ten Thousand Villages, UQ O a nonprofit retailer providing vital,fair income to Sen.Susan Collins,R-Maine celebrates her re-electlon victory In Portland,Maine,on a ® artisans in over 30 developing countries. Non,4.Collins was quite popular around Election Day,fielding calls from President m Friday,November7-Saturday,November lS Bamck Obama,Republican leaders and OeocNtk leaden. an as VILLAGES fdMenUtsF,sgn;Sahn." ;Sato;hRXMunda,Rw Moderates look to Wield IX m VILLAGES MoRMr1..-Mor lOrhm•Rh9am4pm;O N SUndaymJpm m HARMONY MADE Nodedby6Rad ShepMrd Lu nnMut6atUenwoWMemodte(hmdi O 2106 BIals Meme,MenwMA Springs,to 11601 U) Ur, ta m BY HAN D"' pmm•elnformaoonordireAms: OA % c uaao-aue gowScelligoodshepMrdiOfpRutleRbsem clout in GOP-led Senate n CO mDonne Crim. The GOP likely will hold 54 seats next es per AwMandd Pont year,asolid majority but six short of the i 60 necessary to break Democratic fili- is WASHINGTON—Soft-spoken Repoli- busters and delaying tactics.Incoming E 9 ■ lican Sen.Susan Collins is quite popular Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,R-Ky, ZI .. m these days,fielding calls from President would need the support of Maine's King NQ) SNOWMASS I ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS I BUTTERMILK n Z m Barack Obama,members of the GOP and Democrats such as Nonh Dakota's TC leadership and top Democrats Harry Reid Heidi Heitkamp,Joe Mention,of"est r W E ' R E HIRING and Chuck Schumer. Virginia,Joe Donnelly,of Indiana and Z O The outreach we more than just can. MonlatI Jon Tester to move legislation a y N p VO granulations for winningafourth term. over any Democratic objections. Q C 6) Q c STOP BY OUR JOB FAIR: . Rental Techs Both parties have an incentive for court. os-Ihopethatthoseofuswhoarecom- f101 TUESDAYS 2-4 PM AT Rental Cashiers n Collins, mnted to actually getting legislation U MIIINII ASC HR DEPARTMENT Ski Concierge s Come January.the centrist from Maine Passed can work together and bridge AT ASPEN HIGHLANDS Retell Sales will be a crucial member ofs group of s.am fthe partisan divide:Collins said moderates wielding considerable clout in an interview. in the Republican-led Senate,along with McConnell has promised to get bills sit STOP BY OUR JOB FAIR: independent Angus King,also of Maine, passed and change how the Senate oper. THURSDAYS 2.4 PM AT TickOt Sellm M and a handful of Democrats from Repub. ales,resuming to put practices in which T n pSPFX(I)SNOWMIISS. ASC HR DEPARTMENT GMe Monitors O m J Ikon states.Depending increase the issue,the Republicans and Democrats over amend- AT ASPEN HIGHLANDS moderate nsfromracks uld Democratic slues mos menu legislation and get a aTTYote.Cur- Reid t\I m p�1lI• Republicans from Democratic states move rent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Forc !W rs..aw 1to Qu foo call 00-770it aspenv�w.mass.cR Rbs y bids. middle ahead of 2016 re-election T = Dnesuons,call ro2m 3oo-noo� � WORI{ bids. SENATE,A21 \ as T C H f2Y5 LE R 5 T v 1'�'! 7as asS 1% ® o i 0 200C I AWD 9OF5 ruc $YC 'o O15 a � FINISH .- >2 kk m 2014 C Sik IIfA128]�Ivp S32.B15.A(tl pdflybal leh46 Sxkdl§k btaM/oagA4.73rd liwee xM DPydS nta Iba rolidde,W. •� � Nea igna Pas6mxyiesu'nbe wpM.Nvditla aged loaM eta Rwmla Dsaaim PrOaes a2Y Santa. Mtak wi OTOPJ� 27TH ST & GRAND AVE I GLENWOOD SPRINGS 1970.384.3141 a � 000m� aa__ ,,m„ WWW.berthodmotors.net `e A20 I Thursday November 132014 1 The Aspen Teres WORLD & NATION U.S. concerned on Israeli move in east Jerusalem N o tear(Federman _ y the Jewish connection teportsite. ' o Thenssoaauilreu 1 3 t7�`f 'Cor correspondent repotted C9 n yY` k r h that settlers invaded the mosque Z p ° JERUSALEM Israeli author- ! t w m small groups and toured the Z N ifisi"oprem ltinerywpprmal i W.$m } place with leaders explaining in Z a ftp �, Wednesday to build Zoo homes in a r` y p them mythical accounts about J -2m a Jesh area of eat Jerusalem,a !I t r •�l the alleged Temple Mount.•the CL 0 L coma that threatened to push Is- ;_ s- _ state-run Wafa news agency said p •- `o reebs and Palestinians deeper into _ ' r - Wednesday. Z N N - conflict after weeks ofuneast mer 1 In the latest unrest,an attack 4 Z O t the city's holiest sites. Wednesday on a mosque In a West J °If 0 ; The announcement came hours f '{ BankviBage ignited a fire that N D C before U.S.Secretary ofStats John destroyed its first Boor.Residents Q 0 O. Kerry,xis scheduled to serum in ; a blamed local Jewish settlers. neighboring Jordan on a mission Israeli police said someone = 3 0 5 aimed in pan at restoring calm.A ; threw a Molotov cocktail M an rui uState Department spokeswoman 1 dent ryn Whim¢in the Israeli-Ar- C said Washington was-deeply con- ab town ofShfamm late Tuesday O ti erred-by the decision. - night causing light damage. c Much ofthe recent violence has - The US.condemned the West Qj .. re stemmed from tensions surround- V Bank mosque attack.Paid said. E N CO Ing Jerusalem's hilltop complex ._ - — -' adding:"We believe that such ad els E evered by Muslims and hateful and provea that is rtive actions Z to d a as Jews.The collapse of U.S.-bee- .il v.. T` against apiece ofworshiparenev- fey O U keret power talks,lsreel's were but ''a+!1 erjustified7 m D N 70 summer in the Goa Strip against Netanyahu is sharing up his U Q (n 0 S the Islamic militant group t lamaz, av hard-line credentials ataume ce and continued Israeli settlement Palestinians Inspect damage to a mosque following an attack in the West Bank village of Mughayea north when his coal iron islooking in- as construction in east Jerusalem of Ramallah,on Wednesday.The attack early Wednesday Ignited a fire that destroyed its first Boor,the creasingly unstable and he faces m have added to the distrust. village's mayor said,blaming Jewish settlers for the attack. a primary in his Used Party next Brachio Sprung,a spokeswom- Year cc man in the mayors office,said city by the international community. arrangement.Jordan holds cus- bring cabs. Economics Minister Naftali ° officials approved 200 homes in About 200,000 Jewish Israelis todial rights mer Muslim holy Abbas accused Netanyahu this Bennett,leader ofthe ultrareaded- N N the Ramot area.Sprumot Sleeping said it live in developments like Basites in Jerusalem,including the week efleading the region into alist Jewish Home Patty and Per- so° was just a preliminary stage of the that ring east Jerusalem to help compound known to Jews as the a'religioam warta .•Nenyaht re- haps Netasysilms most formidable xe planning process-meaning con- cement Israeli control. Temple Mount and to Muslims spudded by calling Abbas a liar rival,has accused the government p th m e straclion would be years away. The Israeli announcement came as the Noble Sanctuary.It is the and accusing him ofincitement. of being too soft in its response to as She also said city officials ap- before Kerry's scheduled meet- third-holiest site in Islam and the The hush rhetoric reflects more theunrest. t proved an additional 174 homes ing in Jordan with Ring Abdul- most sacred place in Judaism. than personal animositybetween Housing Minister Uri Ariel,also LE2 for construction in an Arab Lab l l and Palestinian President Jews are permitted to visit,but the two leaders.Both appear to be ofthe Jewish Home Party,has asx neighborhood. Mahmoud Abbas to discuss the prayer by non-Muslims is banned. pandering to their political bases called for Jews to be allowed to e To Israelis,the announcement situation in Jerusalem.There was Increased visits by Jewish woe- ofsupport at a sensitive time. pity inside the compound.An ad-war relatively harmless.Ramon is no immediate plan for Kerry to shipers to the site,which also in- Abbas,after nearly a decade in vocate of increased Jewish access 0 re w a sprawling development already to.]to Israel. eludes the Al-Agsa Mosque,have office and several failed rounds of to the site was shot and seriously home to about 70,000 people,and "Weare deeply concerned by raised concerns among Muslims peace talks,has little to show for wounded by a Palestinian guman ~ es most Iraelis assume the area will this decision,particularly given that Israel is secretly trying to take his efforts.He al so is facing a chat- last month. Ocremain put oflsrsel under any the tese situation in Jerusalem it over.The tensions have boiled Imi Bum Hamas. The tactics by Abbas and U o future peace agreement. as well as the unequivocal and over into violent demonstrations Fierychetmic is an easy way, Netanyahu risk igniting further o In the current tense climate, unanimous position of the United and deadly Palestinian attacks to appeal to his public at a time violence and have drawn calls for Uhowever,any Israeli construction States and others in the interna- that have killed six people in re- when many Palestinians believe restraint. ° for Jewish areas ofeast Jerusalem tional community opposing such cent weeks.The fatal shooting by Israel is not serious about neged- Science Minister Yaacw Peri, is potentially explosive. construction in east Jerusalem; police last weekend often Israeli ating a peace deal that would end ofthe centrist Yeah Atid Party c Israel captured east Jerusalem State Departmentspokeswoman Arab protester in northern Israel ahalf-century of Israeli military and a further chief of the Shin in 1967 and annexed the a. Jen Psaki said in Washington. as he appeared to be walking away occupation and establish an inde- Bet security agency,urged'all in a more that is not recognized 'These decisions to expand from the officer has worsened the pendent Palestinian state. leaders to act responsibly by T as internationally. construction base the potential to atmosphere. The official Palestinian media showing restraint and ending the as m The Palestinians claim east exacerbate this difficult situation Israeli Prime Minister Benja- are filled with reports about Israeli incitereari N a Jerusalemas their capital.They on the ground,and they will not min Netanyahu has insisted that hard-liners calling foe legalized 'We most all work intensively \ e consider all Israeli construction contribute to efforts in reduce the Israel has no plans to change the prayer on the Temple Mount and and genuinely to calm the cur. there to be illegal settlement tic. tension;she added. arrangements at he holysite, visits to the compound by Jewish rent situation;he told foreign r t tivity-a position that is backed Underalongstare ing but his pledges have done little to worshipers u well as denials of reporters. r ° HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC a Seasonal Ski Rentals �j as is holding apttblic outreach OPEN HOUSE �ya on behalf of both A - s (d c 0 $ THURSDAY,UA}',NOVEh16ER 13 14:00 TO 6:00 PM Used Gear-$135 ferRse season US u 1305.GALENAST. tAieL New Gear-$250 for the tienton 0Br Siurr Ciri°AJrrring Room,baarmrnrlmrl ofCiry Ha(l Gospen. hetwPropoprood,csed daelopmcalled iaseIcuoesol,dge and<Base byrhege.o(Asprn.The iwopropossJloJgrs arc callrJ Basel Lodge and Rase2 Lodge_ Rent0ls•Refall•TunesC0 2 Basel-Lodge is load ter730 E. Basel Lodge islootedet232 ,� Coops Ava(noohcan comaof F..Cooper Fax Main Soco(narrhosi corner of Doily,Monthly and Weekly and S.Original),for odes,l nt o(rhr Main Suo rt and Monarch Socos),I., Sfamge olsoawitable rn Backhmn Arms pro mdesdopmcm of ihcrnr..in Conoco Lb SKI & BOARD SHOP ceucoeogTus a ° ilia air dayoa +rrdla lm.umgaboa drbr.o.bvr6 ofrbrpmpwaL or 7 ung rbrm 555 E. s U rant Ave. Aspen,Colorado 970.925.7748 aab rbc applies,o n m,aed.mdro oa.ag d m am d. C.11 or Stop by Monday though Priday HAAS LAND PLANNING , LLC November 18, 2014 Ms. Sara Adams City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 730 E. Cooper Avenue-Research of Mineral Estate Owners Dear Sara: On behalf of our client, 730 E. Cooper, LLC, and in connection with the application for Planned Development submitted to the City for the property located at 730 East Cooper Avenue, we have performed the public notice requirements as required by Section 26.304.060(E) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Among the requirements contained in said section is the duty to notify affected mineral estate owners by certified mailing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Haas Land Planning, LLC has researched the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's records (the "Public Records") for the existence of mining claim or possession deeds connected to the subject property dating to the late 19th Century, using the exceptions listed in the General Warranty Deed issued to 730 E. Cooper, LLC. A review of the Public Records did not generate any record of a current deed relating to mining claims or possession deeds. This letter is submitted to you to confirm our good-faith attempts to locate a list of mineral estate owners. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at the phone number provided, or by email at mitch@hlpaspen.com. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC odi Ja son • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 Sara Adams From: Mitch Haas <mitch@hlpaspen.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:11 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Neighborhood Outreach Summary Our team held a public open house meeting from 4:00 to 6:00 PM on November 13, 2014. The open house was held in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at City Hall. An advertisement for the open house were run in the Aspen Times on November 12 and 13, inviting anyone and everyone in the public who has an interest in the two Base Lodge proposals to attend, meet the applicant and planner, and ask questions/engage in a friendly dialogue. At the open house, plans sheets, drawings and renderings showing the proposals in detail were posted on the walls, and packets of plans and design inspiration materials were made available as well. In addition, standard public notice requirements were met with posting of a sign at the property, publishing of notice in the Aspen Times, and sending out a mailing to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the site. Please consider this summary as an additional exhibit to the already provided Affidavit of Public Notice. Best regards, Mitch Haas Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning,LLC 420 East Main Street, Suite 10-121 Aspen,CO 81611 Phone:(970)925-7819 _ Email:mitch@hlpaspen.com APlease consider the environment before printing this email Grn.f don0allty no c Le about:r na end any to hnr. .ents cn a n fn;orr at��,hat ma, ..e i,-,r fidenvul a m i;r wwi g.,f I r;;nfam•ic,is fa e r s�of tho - ir-di,nd,ial n nn'rtf n";firaiiy 4rMn.ed_If yui,i a c,nu,fl-,in!c i dcd r,:dpiert any L;.;s Grp ,ai,.yii,,,dist it:u6on rr i.,>u..f L i�fonraa� :s prate _ i. fF the :n orro yl-nse immpdmlelg notify tie„ander 2m de aw this n c_sarje and iti,Ea..I.i„nts,i'any. 1 EXHIBIT Sara Adams From: Ruth Carver <ruthac48@gmai1.com> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 9:53 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: 730 E Cooper Ave. Comments by 708 E Cooper Neighbor Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission My name is Ruth Carver. I am the owner of 708 E Cooper, the most immediate neighbor to 730 E Cooper. I have several comments. I attended the November 18th meeting that was tabled, in fact, l paid to change an airplane ticket to attend. Sorry I cannot attend now. 1) Parking requirements should Not be waived. The town is at capacity for street parking in this neighborhood. If no on site parking is required it will cause long tern permanent problems with the neighbors and businesses. Most of the hotel occupants will drive to Aspen as airfare is very expensive. The targeted income level of guests will not pay the premium airfare to Aspen. A parking garage onsite should be required. Skip the bowling alley. A two lane bowling alley is like a two table restaurant. Fun concept, but not large enough to matter. A parking garage Will matter. 2) Cooper and Original is our East entrance to Aspen. The first stop sign as one enters from the east is located„ here. A well designed building.with a setback from the corner would be most attractive and welcoming. The city now has many big box buildings covering every possible inch of ground. We all know what our West entrance looks like. This is an opportunity to do right by Aspen's East entrance. 3) The roof deck is a concern as this is a residential neighborhood. The deck noise and hotel guests being easily able to see into the neighbors homes is a potential long term problem. This is a maor concern for my property. With all hopes for you proceeding with caution. Thank you for listening. Ruth A Carver 1 EXHIBIT BASE 1 PUBLIC T r.e CT CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS • MASS AND SETBACKS • PARKING VARIANCE • PUBLIC AMENITY • DESIGN GUIDELINES • ISSUES WITH NO SETBACKS • THE BOTTOM LINE MASS AND SETBACKS ■ THIS LOT IS FLANKED ON TWO SIDES BYTHE R/MF ZONE DISTRICT; WHICH ALLOWS 25-32' HT; REQUIRES 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK AND 5' SIDEYARD SETBACKS ■ DIRECTLY BEHIND IS AH ZONING; HT IS 30' DEFINED BY A PUD, AS ARE SETBACKS ■ ACROSS COOPER ST IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE, WITH A HT OF 28' BY RIGHT AND 32' BY SPECIAL REVIEW; NC HAS FRONT AND SIDEYARD SETBACKS OF 5'-0 ■ THE NEXT ZONE TO THE WEST IS C-1 W/ 10' FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS; 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK. MAX HT IS 25'-0. ■ BASE 1 IS PROPOSED ON AN 'ISLAND'; ONE LOT ZONE DISTRICT, SURROUNDED BY ZONE DISTRICTS W/ FRONT YARD SETBACKS. INFLECTION AND CONTEXT ARE NEEDED. ZONE MAP a AH R/MF 'CL RIM F MASS AND SETBACKS continued • BASE 1 IS IN THE CL, COMMERCIAL LODGE ZONE • NO MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS • HT LIMIT 36'-38' FOR 3 STORY ELEMENTS AND UP TO 40' BY COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSED HEIGHTS OF BUILDING : Parapet 37'-6"; Upper Parapet 43'-0; Elevator shaft 48'-6"; Upper Parapet is 3' above Height allowed by special review; 5' over "by right" height limit • FAR ALLOWED 2.5 : 1; Allowed 17,317.5 sq ft — Proposed FAR 17,720.39; 402.89 sq ft. over allowable MASS AND SETBACKS, CONTINUED • BASE 1 IS FLANKED ON THE EAST AND WEST BY PROPERTIES THAT ARE SET BACK FROM COOPER STREET BY 10'-0. • THE CONTEXT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ; ALLOWING THIS BUILDING TO BE BUILT RIGHT TO THE LOT LINE IS OUT OF CONTEXT AND CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. • THIS WILL BE THE ONLY BUILDING FOR MANY BLOCKS THAT WILL NOT HAVE A FRONT SETBACK PARKING VARIANCE • BASE 1 IS PROPOSING ZERO PARKING SPACES - THE PROPOSED PARKING IS A DEAL WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN TO PROVIDE SOME RESERVED PARKING IN THE RIO GRANDE PARKING STRUCTURE. IN THE SUMMER, WHEN THE PARKING IS EVEN TIGHTER, THE CITY ONLY PROMISES 20-25 SPACES; TO BE SPLIT BETWEEN BASE 1 AND BASE 2 THIS IS ONLY 10-12 SPACES FOR THE ENTIRE HOTEL, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT IN SUMMER. THESE SPACES ARE OFF SITE. - BASE 1 SAYS IT IS RELYING ON WE-CYCLE AND PROVIDING A SHUTTLE SERVICE. THERE IS NO WE-CYCLING IN WINTER AND THERE IS NO PLACE FOR A SHUTTLE TO PARK ON SITE; AT EITHER HOTEL. - PEOPLE STAYING IN AN "ECONOMY" LODGE WILL NOT FLY INTO ASPEN; COMPOUNDING THE PROBLEM . - THE RESTAURANT AND RETAIL WILL NOT HAVE PARKING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALREADY HAS A PARKING ISSUE PARKING VARIANCE , CONTINUED • WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PARKING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CITY IN THE RIO GRANDE PARKING GARAGE WHEN THE CITY, COUNTY, POLICE AND SHERIFF'S OFFICES MOVE INTO THEIR PROPOSED NEW OFFICES IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? • A PARKING GARAGE UNDER THE BUILDING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FREE MARKET TOWNHOUSES TO THE WEST AND THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING TO THE NORTH (WHICH PROVIDES 27 SPACES) • IT WAS SAID THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR PARKING BENEATH THE HOTEL. PLEASE SEE SCENARIOS FOR PARKING WITH A CAR ELEVATOR. PARKING GARAGE ; SELF SERVE PROVIDES 13 SPACES 1w r - - AREA FOR STAIRS/ ELEVATOR HANDICAP 12 13 CAR ELEVATOR PARKING GARAGE W/ VALET PROVIDES 21 SPACES Iw rAREA 11 1] 18 19 r 20 CAR ELEVATOR 21 PUBLIC AMENITY • THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC AMENITY PER SECTION 26.575.030 "Public amenity contributes to an attractive commercial and lodging district by creating public places and settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere." • DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AMENITY: — OPEN TO VIEW FROM THE STREET AT PEDESTRIAN LEVEL — NO WALLS OR ENCLOSURES THAT WILL BLOCK VIEWS FROM THE STREET INTO AND THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC SPACE — CURRENT PROPERTY HAS 1464 SQ FT OF PUBLIC AMENITY THAT IS OPEN TO THE STREET AND USED HEAVILY BY PATRONS OF THE BUSINESSES AND PEDESTRIANS AT THE 600 SQ FT POCKET PARK ON THE CORNER • THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS OFFERING A 533 SQ FT COURTYARD THAT IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE HOTEL AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN CRITERIA. THIS WILL BENEFIT THE HOTEL GUESTS. THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS HARDLY A PUBLIC AMENITY. IT IS ACCESS FOR THE RESTAURANT TO THE TRASH/ UTILITIES ON THE ALLEY, AND FOR RECEIVING GOODS INTO THE RESTAURANT FROM ALLEY DELIVERIES PUBLIC AMENITY, CONTINUED • A ROOF TOP DECK IS ALSO PROPOSED; IT IS INTENDED FOR THE HOTEL GUESTS, BUT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IS CALLED A PUBLIC AMENITY. THIS ALSO DOES NOT MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS. THE PROPOSED ROOF TOP TERRACE BAR IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING IT. • THE INTENT OF THE PUBLIC AMENITY REQUIREMENT IS NOT BEING MET BY PLANTING A FEW TREES NEXT TO THE STREET AND BUILDING AMENITIES FOR THE USE OF THE HOTEL GUESTS. • SECTION 26.412, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, PURPOSE: • The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape. • "Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or sun angles." COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES • SECTION 26.412.060 COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: 26.412.060 A. PUBLIC AMENITY: • 1. THE DIMENSIONS OF ON-SITE AMENITIES SUFFICIENTLY ALLOW FOR A VARIETY OF USES. - THE PROPOSED COURTYARD IS DESIGNED TO BEAN EXTERIOR LOUNGE FOR HOTEL GUESTS; SEATING WITH A FIRE PIT. NO VARIETY OR PUBLIC USE • 2. PUBLIC AMENITY CONTRIBUTES TO AN ACTIVE STREET VITALITY - THE INTERIOR COURTYARD AND ROOF TOP TERRACE DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AN ACTIVE STREET VITALITY • 8. ALL LODGING BUILDINGS SHALL PROVIDE A DELIVERY AREA ON THE ALLEY. - THERE IS NO DELIVERAY AREA PROVIDED ON SITE, JUST TRASH AND UTILITY AREA 26.412.070 SUGGESTED DESIGN ELEMENTS • A. SIGNAGE: THE SIGN SHOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE BUILDING AND MEET THE SIZE STANDARDS. • C. LIGHTING: SIGNIFICANT LIGHT TRESPASS SHOULD BE AVOIDED. ILLUMINATING THE ENTIRE BUILDING SHOULD BE AVOIDED. CLEAR GLASS WALLS DO NOT MEET THIS STANDARD... WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NO SETBACK ISSUES • BASE 1 IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT RIGHT ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, PROVIDING NO CHECK-IN OR DROP OFF/PICK UP AREA FOR HOTEL GUESTS. • THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOTEL FACES ORIGINAL STREET, WHICH IS THE CONTINUATION OF HWY 82, AND IS NEXT TO A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION. • TAKING THE HOTEL JEROME AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS DOESN'T WORK; CAR MIRRORS AND DOORS ARE RIPPED OFF OF CARS AS AN ALMOST MONTHLY OCCURANCE. THE JEROME IS PLANNING ON BUILDING A PLACE FOR CARS TO PULL OFF MAIN STREET FOR CHECK-IN AS A RESULT. LET'S NOT ALLOW THE SAME BAD SITUATION BE BUILT AGAIN ON ORIGINAL STREET. • WHERE WILL THE PROPOSED SHUTTLE VEHICLE PARK TO DROP OFF GUESTS? • WHERE WILL GUESTS PARK THEIR CARS WHILE THEY CHECK IN WITH THEIR LUGGAGE AND SKIING OR SUMMER SPORTS GEAR? • THIS IS NOT A SAFE PLACE TO BUILD RIGHT TO THE LOT LINE. THE SEMI-TRUCKS THAT DELIVER TO CITY MARKET EVERY DAY AND NIGHT BACK INTO A VERY SMALL DELIVERY GARAGE, CROWDING AN ALREADY BUSY INTERSECTION. THE BOTTOM LINE • THE LACK OF SETBACKS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CREATES COUNTLESS SAFETEY CONCERNS AND TRAFFIC FLOW BURDENS AT ONE OF ASPEN'S BUSIEST INTERSECTIONS. • THE PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITIES ARE CLEARLY DESIGNED FOR THE GUESTS WITHIN THE WALLS OF THE HOTEL AND DO NOT OPENLY INVITE THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE. • THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE ON HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS EMPHATICALLY AFFECTS EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT IN THE MOST NEGATIVE WAY. THE LAND USE CODE WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR JUST THIS PURPOSE. • FINALLY, THE MOST NOTEABLE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE WAIVER OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE AND CRITICALLY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EVERY LOCAL RESIDENT. /bas/ n IAhe part on which something rests or is supported : a point from which something can develop. f A S P E YEAR ROU BASE AsPEN r EAT • f BASE ASPEN 7:1 ■ ■ �_ ;e ;��/ � � _ __ . �Z� v�{4+��� AF lx�ry J'l jP :' �� � '� �M't1' 44 �� w �iJ � _ � -� � � . �� � -C ����� � _ . PLAY ■ V I E S S H ■ - P I N G - ■ ALTAIACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY �G� LOT R,LOTSANDTHE EASRTERLY9.2T OF LOT O,BLOCK 105, CITY ANDTOWNSITE OF ASPEN, lie ; L ,rte,, � r •: / 1 / / .wrwr..w.•. COUNTY OF PR70N,STATE OF COLORADO f I BECTON 18,TOWNSHIP IO SOUTH,RANGE 84 WEST OFTNE STH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN �S dr Z5 BLOCK 106 (-(7 ff�Ir'Li rm .n+ I^I l rr ♦wuv[v..r .�•r mr.vr v KV.11�WO�NND / / �� - Ik� / f � - Isi u'q wun wa as rw R1PflIC 9C rurmn..ra rw.s I _ i c ua 99i 1 r. BIOCK I6O f.r�4L . - _ ___ ^rte a7wll"a Loix I-m5 ,-a mla ' / BLOCK I06 BLOCK 103 Zi r wn,am.u.mwrrr®nw�rrmr. t �+Y �a„ / "♦. e� f, ♦ VR f{[� I / m� .nae �.ggU ,1 x �m / • O ♦ }' f LOT K T ,J N 1L1 Q' OLOCK ni cPFR A►rFN �— m _,�.a.w mw '�g ;u Wl UqN _ / �w.u®wnry rar.i[w �R AMM r�wW r�[®rui¢�e.,[rmvwmnr[rmw sv�r�wi qi� € j� \ `I _ 6 ��rumn uruvu rwfi .f�r.1w. roumr uuuw uFSMww o�om`4 II,Lc,`m. •'C�.� ��... /``` emrmm no wm...v..m.wrwr. ar wm. "am.lk S - - I C -s i P 5 � _ Y6 Y ORIGINAL STR BUCKHORN MI%ED USE E v ma O vxurexEun '°'w�A� a ®oo❑®��000�� '����� q ��Iii: .•• YYY a ll ---------------------------------------------------- o, 0 0 Li ®10 _ I -------------------------------- ------------ ORIGINAL STREET D � na•.«�.r.m�nw _ J — .nom 730E COOVEN � ••+••�_•.�® J can •8•d.m �.a Wal �g 111111 r I I���II►'•1�iw �� ri�l9� I����° �II���� - i®ice II I ���! 0 111111 E '� S I 111111 W ' :� �; �■ + HIIII�!� �,t I WELCOME TO BASEI Y -. VLA • �- WIPT � �f BASE 1 730 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN , co LOCALJURISDICTION, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, ARCHRECT: LAND PLANNER: DRAWING LIST. THE CITY OF ASPEN MDEVELOPMENT CAMBURAS B THEODORE.LTD, HMS LAND PUNNING LLC SHEET NWBER I SHEET NATAE k 130 S.GALENA STREET 2001 N.HALSTED ST.,SUITE 301 2451E DEMPSTER SHLEET.SUITE= 420 EAST MAIN STREET.SIE.1OS C l COVER SHEET ASPEN.CO81811 CHICAG0,ILBLI814 DESPLAINES.L80016 ASPEN.CA81811 ALTA EXISTING LAND SURVEY T (STO)42B-2781 CONTACT:MARNNUNT TEL(847)2WlW5 M(WO)925.7818 CONTACT:BY DEPARTMENT CONTACT.TED J.THEODORE,NCARB,I FFD AP CONTACT:MTTCH HMS P141 FASTING PUSH MENTTY M ROSAVILA.LEMAP EC-1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN fi 7 8 EC-2 EASTIN EDPUB PIAN • - EL-1 EASTTNG LODOING PA PROPOSEDPUBLJCANENTTY PA3 PROPOSED SrrEP AMENffY-ROOF Ep b010 PROPOSED SITE PLAN �` � � 8 q A-111 PROPOSED FLOOR PIANS MI12 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS FAR-1 FLOOR PLAN-FM CALOULATTGNS FM-2 FLOOR PUN-FM CALCULATIONS J [ NL-1 FLOORPLM-NETLceuwcnIETWABLE NL-2 FLOOR PLAN-NET LF.ASABIEAIET LIVABLE 5 14210 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS [Y A-211 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS rt a r 1 C • ` �` rf 1:0J S� roilLu a IL Do Ld a- a41w 33 p�p 1 w VICINITY MAP CS_l ; BLOCK"05 / LOT "! . . ALTA/AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY mg I I BLOCK 1 OS LOT R, LOT S AND THE EASTERLY 9.27' 5 Nil Ad 11 C�3o OF LOT Q. BLOCK 105, @ CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, `3 Owls CONTROL NY COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO 8 Z0'M \ :'�! SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 84 WEST H. / OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ., P LEGEND l I rc oArv[ r Q , l•� / I RAE M µ DR ] • b .,,S>Sqg b' l Y I / / DAL NATEA VALVE I / :ad r ba.YT�• yam Y/l l / ® ooAN. FoNsYµNdF ART NNA ANA f RAN ILI �• I / O SICU,CRANAfE YYOId£ • WATER SXURIFT IS SANITARY uAHN0.E 1y S ..w I RM L Q TELEPHONE PEDESTAL F STUCCO ENFMJ Na _ a I LOTP %/ 71D .NTC.Avow. l 1 1 ® OAS.1. �J B� A ww.epLauop �' fr 13 mcmc YErtR pm. . alai' j E O PARS o BLOCK105 A i ® IARl(:Nnax WNma ear N • /� L•UID AREA I { ~ ISWAIVOT•1A1........DENOTES RECORD rYNNG BELL MOUNTAIN PUD /./ aAY)Bo.FT. I W ASPER PS DOES MAR GRAPHIC SCALE yq ry PLAT BOOK CT,PAGE 33 Jo v-///. O.IaaSAc. ¢ / I) l j /• ry / /-// I _ /& l IN rrr I x 1 IfL. •.dram: • _ _ /:I PRE �3 gl I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Z 1 j m a LOTQ J f j•. • - ry / I 1+ j d I ALL OF LOT R.N1 Cf LOT S.µ0 WE FASIEXLY 9.3) AH OF LOT NE 0. F ME TOS,Ott AND 1pNN9R � N S' @/ j OF ASPEN,HMG N SECTOR Ta i0YN4a'10 5w M.RµQ p1 MESi C£ME bM PRINCIPAL _ BLOCK 105 /fA �. eN —___r�__—__________ r n` ( MERIDIAN. c� ALLON N ''°ac o ' 11 I W m_ > ,j aN¢ LOT R LOT S o / / NOTES 'z o^ O LOT K I • Q I /• 1 BARS DF TONGS 1.TMs SAAWT A A NARNS CP N]!W'il-W I£INFLN nE YVNNES,PRPERn W o Zua U W CORNER BLOCK 1 OS BLOCK 1 OS m ANJ o / j1 DDRTUI,A RERY a uP LSNSm M NAGE HAS THE.WNNATI CDRNER r 101 K (Ef O Pi Z BL01'I( 103 f---j 0 NNAR.IN Pub AS RIOT RERNON. •P elDa IN,A i R.DAR Pal I ? S ,a1 D I �/ I 2 ' I I :. DATE P RlRtfr:DECEYew 5,WI:. W K n U r iR'�W x�nOY / P1 KINhr vI�6 ,� I li ` 1 f / ? 11b 9JR'AT IS BASw CR 1Nf YY P TIf Olr AND IOMRR R ASPEN.OAl[D..MOHYBFA 10.ITN tltY I44YNTT No pR I j - ✓ _ L ' OF ASPEN 05 MIIRCI Y NEDDIRK. YAP]wM W 'FAM wli RB OA R].l APP AR LAWPI O IN LOT K 'R'HEREN "IC Ecaom N PUT Boa r AI TAN!N.ro calms rano N RAS M g aJ N \� N' 1 . INS PROTEST,a 91 1 w RFSpIVATIa15,RESNO.LOMIWTS YO EAYEYDIn P I.NA P IN r`�n BLOCK 111 ^ r o OII DAIFp:gH TRq SWT 1ntCASE N.0 PC..A) �TIENI MPAREp Br NIxIN aY.Nn IInE MC, + n J w • a Fb I �' • 1 / Il l I s •R4NTRRECLWFOa M KVPT N AI'YESAOEv�.411 AND SOCK I'S AAT PAK M PRONgNGAS FFOU.O'M•M.AAI xo � _a I '6 FLEE SHA=w NDar ACa1YD)W.1.E,SIO.RNER.PINASM p KIPPER r TO.11" = n N>3�,]/ I AN 1 I N CLAN P ro3sEsmx Imo WOES..uNN- SOIL Zr l O l •I / / P .PMIPENTY a RN2C]To...AND IMO1H.wa1T3 As sR FORM N r®RECD .N BOM1 r AN 41 AT PAN ST..PAP 135 AT PAS I.RON NNS AT PACE AN,RA IN AT PAN No 4 Bary,UI AT L / INS s PRagry R IS N(CT TO IEIwS,SNPnMS.PRONRaIBIs AND .S As ET MM MMT `` - •' • Y ' I SaMO TEASE SPONN't YYPI Il w3 As APAPMM No MIS". • • xxxa3 6 MIS PROPERTY IS..S TO ENS.OACT IPS,ApNRal9,C&IC.AAERS Np ALL NAFRAS AS Ni FPM ,.PYPA - I I. I / P.- 1 .0�5,"RpN'O M0.:spXES a SGA.1 Pn P Area.11RfRT6fD.1u,]Wi As RECESna S AND SYdTRM IASSOa,ATIN M ASPEN aAT4M2 N6.2 NEIES N KEPT REARESO ANAs ALR 0]-171q�ti,` '/ e'srN IIT / !• / N.ww M REpYnP xG Seeool. ` A ' WNEswDRrDR / lo. TNI$TRPfRn Iffi NTTM rtoW AREA WM N (F I r POMG FAH 0iFM.FLOOO RrM9RANN FFM AYCERNARAWFARE.Ac, .`AHG G S DH COOP D0�PAS 1 DATE0To' ("Ho. j It. THE MORRIS BUILDING M ME SLAT ECT PROPERTY IS A STAND ALONE STRIICTPE AND HAS NO PARTY _ WALL$FRCY MY AILERONS PROPERTY BUILMNOS. u R'D,W) AVFN j ` I IS. AT ME nM P WE RDD WRYEY MERE AM NO ENOENN SEAR.PONlO MRN,BUIIDNF 11 pA CONSTRUCTON P Ba1pM ASMTMS 9 e�RENDAN] OF j -1, O 1 Z� I 2011 ALTA/ACSM CER}TfICATKIN p Q / A. N ME aNXxP1N ANNE LLC A COLORADO IALRIFD OABILITI CWPµ,,)b E.COWER,ALC AND PON > _ ZONING CLASSIFlCATION CWNtt TILE NE, U t FRIC� CALLOOK OIL) U nr a TO CTT MAT nr YY W RAT,ND TM WRKY M NNEM IT IS BA TAE MAN M D O E �G! PEW IHYER P � SPPC XPER CITY ASPEN LAND USE CT11E ZB A[CSANIN WIN 1 NFNRM STANDARD SIAL REWIHYP3 P ALTA/AOA1 LAND ORE TITERS, W m / LANDUSE REGUUINR!$PMT)CC-ZOITE MAS HIL CTS AESTABLISHED O ADOPTED By ALTA AND NSPS, D INCLUDES POPE 1,S 1 A.B-ot](CLI.b € 6 CHAPTER Z3.]ID.IIb S.HXRY µ K.).IA CLW Ib P TARES A THESES.TH DDD WNP WAS CpgE1Ep W HF4HR S WI]. 111w rPRRE1ERF' NO HWWBEHTS FOR PRINT.SDE OR REM THAI HTBACC5. OAR P RAT OR uY: peS3riA p.W12 1� YASIUUUR HEACHT. Zp iHT FOR TRO-STORY BUILYMOS.M iFEi "Maw COMNERICAL DFOR ELW RENEW Y.NAY BE MORPHED TO W FEET MRWW PROJECT NO. I \ \ \ Ff BUM) D OPA004 , aP1Y5 P ASPJ PM AREA RARR LFApI. O:' "S PS W11MA CWULAPYIIY P i0 A R)LAL YA%YW FM P$.5:1. Trr G'+ Sy ..TA. MIAIMiA1KN NY COSMERICAL AFFORDABLE IIIAn-FAIRLY LXWRNO.Y: 1.Z:1• FRANNY.NM1Y1G _ PASSA FATE MASPET MLLI-FAMRY NSIrP m1. g''OUT Pc i" I OF1 LOTH /• r E,A3 of 106 r LOT 1 ".'•'• ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY �;�q3£ 5 / I BLOCK 106 LOT R, LOT S AND THE EASTERLY 9.27' O OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, 8 gg= u 41.MAv w uPR>o CITY AND TOWNSITEOFASPEN, ag q``�}r - ,/ / KYRpmTR.".. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO �O�'KO0 ! ' SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST moor_ OF THE STH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN Lw / f 7� � r l l V' ••I �' / LEGEND K TIRE w.Lrm v4LT ® cau.pxlc.nos WAv"RE OS.RARIAE£wraaE ART „p - I T MR 1 / I MMR 91Ulor] �g 1 ! ART D.ruY " Lr/ 1 mxco su4mnwc 1. .•r / O rtltswu " E r[p[sl LOT TIFFurCODra AVwuE -D1 ® W AIMMA BLOCK 106 dl / PSD luroz.c«6mmelel l / r D ELECTRIC EMIR a noel 1 l I .u3 .e AOA,coma mE / ]` ' 864.8 S.F. ` ` (Sp'Ce'w"......cowlLl MOOROLRKO. N.uMp BELL MOUNTUN PUD �3', PUBLIC AMENITY i % // - °""�`"�M°°""` GRAPHIC SCALE , n T.Ar TLooK n.PnaAn %:• o.[wxwaR. !A . IDI[Q!I �m IE l I Ime- o n i / la / u 'v,,D LOT Q �/ CMyp •4 �, / y l .LLL a wr a ."y 6 Lor s AVD mE uslptLr v v 2[r or Lor D.NDLR rpe.on uql 1pvMyrz v BLOCK p1�OB /ry%I L/ ["" .. " 8 •, a / Ibr / "mrnauz".eE.0 w gcnol.le.rowwvlr ID sourlL D.wx e.KEsr or rll[er11 rD"acu a _g } / •o- LOT IR LOT 6 r ! Np7Eg W sw NRNLN / Q`!r BLOCK 1 OS BLOCK 105 x " v o / �./ / ' � :wiswm ri n.¢.w""`i1Daa"imMpi[�sr awn ar Los"r"rtsr rcv.un 181 00 OlK .•:y /` �/ / [Lyy im.,F RSrR"ru"u aLtlx 1[Mw.AT I u 1 . I _ ! z. s.Mlz. W _ } / x o a..r 6 D.aO w TR w R M E, AR m. T%R.ANAL DANA IML41DDI Iv.Ivey.on r ! mmo Aom /y/i •+w., •! �,/^� a ,` .sw®s cams"o..amnw wr vmv...wrowar a wl.ROARED R,NAM Q. g / - •r V eF/ r ca.mY[N..u.O,.c a<ROD.ru,eOR m.r r.R..AD corms mr6.wrs AI �[�W R�u1NN»z ` o I LOT K aa.�losa.. Y w 1 BLOCK 111 R PROMAT, Too. ce >axz 'm ."i. .A0` im[ i, rlllw�'s.AA en m,uwM1.im EA. � q i l / O AA...NOwe .,L I4a ER I[. w.rCReerM y I rwvs d I V jbGj I / a AAAI N III 6 t. ro I6axvlm"s uu[wnmm u Zl mxM.lI¢D®mu ME oR n O V eal TRAT TU p. ,cawrD A..1Rrcra.[\wtr PL.YUM a mrEl1O m'm v "O A. N]SjD} 11 I l l / 1.MG RIY w M.ffi b M64 Vm[A.REN]'. -ii..(D. •r / I 6 AR M691]I fi 5"6[CI m WAN M ARM.A AM.A RE,MR..EEM IDmN(S.N:K N .• .SIµ 1> E •/~_-_-6011.3 S.F. / I / /1 i.¢n en.m la a r4[I..OR IOA Al RAR al.LAR IR Ar lr W..[DR01 AT j 'o: I ., PUBLIC AMENITY RMDA " .:arz~' .7 �: mK MAIaE„RM.RE, "sue �� � // Y6 / I• I ! e ARE RIM11M1 R 9NL<l m 2111 NbnVli.mM9C"5.091GmYm m0.W".rRtl AS Zl ApIM • ! / aRaN.xa Nol sEWesRVWv e.aM1 R.sRR caw m:WMeA.rAA..zWvu.mroz • "s ( J LI0[Feel l I A RRO.NRM1 6 BR;Cr m.M. ...1y.,9d3"N C4m.1KNAI AS Yr[ O1 N m'4"m =` 'or ! I• 1 / I.�RO AE.REOL". . .vw Dn mwta Dm.urt,n i t�l[S a mwl�®,.a r.t I6D / A. 10. AR RrOrE11R 16.AN RDW Y4 2K R(,EF.9 R2RAsm 10 Z Ol1A6F Ltl-rtM R06 C w atlLLMC m RW RDD 9A1NQ 9AR A.fp1"LwM1 RARE, Dp MOM",c, A. A OO Dam MO r< 1 ! / I Elr[Cms wrz Di uc IYI. PFR OWRM C M-!I-DNyWL OR M.1 RepRDR 6.SruD 4.AI RJI ARD".S RARTI IAT " A.r An..DKMc rRRRR MmIWs DOW.I RAWMOR.E.OR DMPID,MMOR,, [s3 NS[LtlRAZ a EMTI Wx"t 4Nx.DND.G N 1.� ApbWAY � I �a 6 V 0 NAw�i6e 1011 ALTA/ACliM CEIRIFlGTION =p y=j / m M BIgIXpM AR16,LLC A COLE".LIMED WBYR CgWARY.]]O E Ca`RDI.IIL 46 R. ZONING CLA891FICATION u calYEmfY CSR I[LI CpM1Y nr1F N[... .u0 U R. DD r n66 m MI AT TAM R OR MI AVD RE..I OR.pA 1,6 SA30 REM YIA. D 9 L Q� DO MOORWRL"rs PER aR u.901 wEIDS[CEDE nu m Acmm,N¢.M.'INA.sr.o.m D[r.A I6D4PW6.5..,A'.1'A1 E40 AAE s..ln. D t O ! LAID VA REWL.MMS RARr]W ADIy9ED p -ZORE MWTo I11 6 AD"Am vY 4ARD M 41.AIR) 6.CLOCEE,IF"E 1.:S A IX-01,7111 a F Ac 0 wARMR Ee I.XO s.IM nal 1..le RAF IAA lI1ERER.M ipD REAR MS CpgE,m a NLLmDI 1.12 F SIB ACnmIw15 IN)R[wRFYdtt Rw,RWI.SIR OR U REAR. .s "TE R MI R RARL RmRR s.MI] -_ Y M FLET ER nm-STORY M.LMCS.]e RET I fR IMRE[-S1RY."AY DE VAII y M AD EEET IRA..�/ __ O-�2�Ypr.pYY'RW w tAFmSe CanRIC L K"RE'RER RODL y PROJECT NO RA i _ / RS.. CWLL.ngY WREO I."mr4..RDN]M R Z., pf 4:Y •..F 3131N1.00 I \ REAR m..N CRRElM4 VEES R.q r1.LEFQ Wl1 LT. `RINI l ppIHL MAA-]..RY IKA9f MI. LIT 1L' L\ REE.ARKEI.aAY T-RY I✓A6.O .H1, 1 1 "` I� iTuiD 1 OF 1 z m m m � D cn D m Q Q - m N w 8 n P -' 0 T O z D m m D A n T O z 74 TL-/ O � J a ° 7- r . z � z � � Y } cl 7-4 i1 Z c CU a oz 3 --1 mr- N z (n W > W Z Dm AD (nD T , � � N W V V N T 0a"N0 FLOOR PUN cweuP�S�mE00011E L1D. 730 E.COOPER ^• 1 ,1-I114M BWIE eim. n ASPEN,CO rq. wiE BY FWCT'WYBION oEmMnw I m.�ws RIVBIIXIB xL pUMXY4x9 W11EX WIEPW MAMCpIBT1Y1¢LM OIMIMM1NPYXNNI6KD WAROFMMtlXRC1.wW ixEYl1E WYXOI,E�YRN.YR0.1lOMCNRU,®M,Mdll M MM1fN CdRfN�c•l1ENMxIRC1.f4RW9R:LWOMM��XEOhYE�1I� •R COMMON AREA -334 SF LEASABLE AREA-844 SF CI It N1 TENANT CLMNT tNmf JONNW mc6ulIT5 LOW ML MiJ 34t � E i K 5O. Ff, cu�NT T�NAN�" Mow Gm LEASABLE AREA -530 SF a NET LEASABLE AREA-1374 SF s n COMMON AREA-334 SF _ a � r / � -p c Y °08 2 LLl O DPAWiNGS BY: pUEr?1Y 099V PUKNOt?N PULP$$ g fu VIAM5 X30� COM 51 A5f'N CO 81611 JILY 2014 EC-2 EXISTING LODGE UNITS=3 ` EXISTING QUEEN BED COUNT=3 EXISTING DOUBLE BED COUNT= 1 EXISTING PULL-OUT=3 EXISTING PILLOW COUNT= 13 once url�r, � SOU UNIT I 3 IOU UNI i >; . . 31 1 � \ s 4 2,261 5Q. F1, COMMON AREA-49 SF NET LIVABLE AREA -2238 SF a --r------i WK UNIT5re .. g q 4 � w a 0 °u a w Y W ' o m 4 ^ E i w I1t?AIMN65 DY. woof tY 969p: 6U"UDIN6 Z lu PIWN5m5 X30 E COMP 51 A5`%ft9lAtN90N5.00M ff%, CO 61611 JLLY 201 b EL-1 6�z �g c Warr D 25 Om A ' 9 —DD I O I m Dm 2 � 1 i gs� Sy mei I •„ mD�e I I C Z I 6o m om � omo og 09 6a I 5 8 1 Cz .0 m wms .z.re 1 *si o+z I 1 I I I 1 � I I _L_J � 9 I A6 s g 9 m C S N � TDi ORIGINAL STREE y A� 00 vm ym O % m T C_ Za H E zzz DRAWING TITLE PRop PU&.1CAMENRY caNsuus aTlrt000llc Lra SCALE' PROJECT NO.: LOCATION NO.: BUCKHORN MMED USE NDATE: mm�a REVIEWED:TT ......COAD w. w[ e oEecx:vnox I r iau RLVIBIPva .0 aurxrroxwrnxwmxu wxEwmxenmre�mww:vo wwuanex rw orrrwxwrtcr.rorr wa wr r.xe ovws..rea wmmruaenxnxour r�rvmnEx mxeexrn nauroam.amnon.eweuw�naaoas�rx H H H g, rn m i a Mi 0 6100011 H �H � W C co CD rCD C7 T D m z DMWING rzu-ROOF TOP PUBLIC AMENITY GMlUMS LTI1[OBORE iTo. --I IT wr[: ,fn,„N 730 E. COOPER """"°•"•""°"'”" pEylEµyp ASPEN.CO I II-1f.IN M IBWEFON tliYBUMBlg11 ` �ffi' W. MlE BV GEBLAIFlWI W.IW RIVBO`!B N�WN'MN®Nq WrfFN W1F YI XFPEIx wxs niu�k�nE UNiaxu.w0 vuNMVYFDM K✓.C/MFMMREf.µE M6YE W�Wilf WRTArtY.UPF➢MmE¢MIYMMNiTE NNnEN CO8M6nc AX inECi�iNVRMi CIWUPN E iNECECNE.IIE. , Iia a �; a ora S n y r x I I u QIP " OAlit ID --1 -4.E V .j m m ; ix. i smm I p 7 Y I. v yllr[Opa I o9 i �m • _es�m I N I ' I 4a � 1 I j IN L } jb>SF� i SIHEET LODGE PILKLP LODGE 6 1 � 9 PARpRG OROP-0FF piOROFF ` \ M �iMNCWM091EixWg1E \� \ �4 ORIGINAL STREET $a g,g, (»1•' rt.ow) PM[n ROwVAr $s X, owmw x 0,oa �x I aawlRGTme g�qµ urwAs•FlcaDelzua [6> Er: ^^ BUCKHDRN MIXED USE 11111M4 RENEWED:n 30 E.000PER AVE. xP ry o agiw ' w a ASPEN,CO gEVlap 9 ALLEY rr r I BUIL,N I OVERHANG a i ABOVE BOMN SERVICE I TRASH& UPLITY BAONOFHOYSE L,OS J I = I �� AIL I ''y'y ARE 00? ,'T'I' I L TRASH AREA RETAL0 p I ,12 ,02 I I I I I Cam I I EW 4 VIII Io 1 I f-1P A I I 4F hGE I - PASSAGEWAY I II h -• ____ I ar.Y 105 I - 8NI STORAGE I STARH 1� STAR I 108 I I I - II Ey 'Illll - - yys e LOUNGE H H I F FVATOR I Sy4 3 € E L101 S I ® O ®® ® o � Ili it � w e 3 e I� x i p t Ul ��� b I FlRE COURTYARD LOBBY I (n S ` s ,1, 100 I J 8 El III I. III I ® O ® ® oll E A F b H H I El STAR S2 lel 1, I'i,r. I ° STASt12, dt 8y L104 RECEPTION - I OFFlCE I 08 'T BOMAGALLEY N .a 1110-0-1 -- I - b I I I I � LOBBY I S L108 I I g W CL MEO NICAL T RESTAURANT/BAR88 L110 L11i n'.r a•-P RETAILA W L„2 � � 0 � •_ I A LL af.P w e� c COOPER STREET �w s�s LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN r,WVN FLOOR PIAN /�/\ ; 6 S y,B.,� 1, _,� A-111 MIN 6rWir�i M6 mum II— .7isaT. [C' C�rYks-���ld I ��I:.a��;? 1♦V1 111 •— !^..�:.:.!:! .r�.. 111 II_ oil . -tab IIIIIIIII� .IF i FLOOR AREA SUMMRY: MAIN LEVEL:8114.45 SF COAIMERCIALAREA'.3,573.71 SF Jr- r r NON-UNIT COMMON AREA 2510.77 SF LOGGIAS PATIO aF91a10 I DEDUCTIM:857.378E AREA-LOGGA B COURTYARD PATp ARFAIOVNRDSFM:B S1 SF 9� 2N01E11EL3Q318SF ...--_ I LODGINOAREA 1.397.358E - - - TRASH AREA 1 NON-UNTECONMONAREA:1125.91 SF BOWI.RI -- 112 DEDUCTIONS:O SF SERVICE L- , AREA TOWARDS FAR:5523.26 SF SACKOFHWSE I L108 I b NON UNIT Lt0] I I�i COMMONAREA 3RD LEVEL: 623.259E 235.67 SF I LODDRIGAREA:4,3W.368E 111 li ljl `k (EXEMPT NOWUNIT COMMON AREA 1,12391 SF LOGGIA) DEDUCTION9:051, �{ I AREA TOWARDS FAR:3.523.28 SF 641.�- ` _ ItIIIII�II ROOF LEVEL 5,285.02 SF Cr—•CORRIOOR A I II', ! II'li �II I. 1.888.1 8F� I NOl1�U; COM10NMMEA:1,41SF 0U1D00RTERMCE-OEC 1 IQ AREA TONNR0.5 FAR:1,H7.385F I - II I IN�I I� li' I LO9VER LEVEL 09B38]SF Ism NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:8.368.87SF PA�AOEWAY AREATO�:D36B.OSFSUBGMDE EXEMPT) 1 1 ILl lil ill,', t� ? I TOTAL FA1L 17720.399E 2.SB:1F I I I SKI STORAGE ZONING INFORMATKKI 3 CALCULATIONS, ZONING:ICL)COMMERCIAL LODGE F 1 STAIR Mt ( NET LOT AREA:8,927 SIP(891Tx1D0) ZONING ALLOVARCE(25:1):17 317.5 SF(2Sx6,927SF) i STAIR YI 1 / I tp3- q LOWER LEVEL O%EXPOSED MALLS 1100%EXEMPT I I I I _ � I I tto5 II II II I II 'd1I1 __ u p�p�gq _ _ ' C - CALCULATIONS: $ �' L T BaT i LOUNGE � II I I I II F� H � l I GR099 FLOOR AREA Q� NON-UNff COMMON AREA ELEVATOR 'llf ELEVATOR .p Il COMMERCIAL SPACE:3,573.71 SIF 6.96867 SF(EXE MPT �� VAT 7111 11 li I LOGGING SPACE 5,791.705E { SUBGRI,DE) 110 % NON-UNIT SPACE:1,,888.865E 2 III ! _ _ I_ Ii III Y GROSS NON UNIT AREA e 1 15T:1.682.805F g III II 2ND:1,12391 SF 2x 5 II I Ii ill % - - b �.'6 3RD:1.125.91 SF 5 III it I ! PIT COURTYARD 1O86Y 4TH 1,417.36 SIF 9 d _ 111 m LL 700 I - I TOTAL SF F NON UNIT COMMON AREA k� Y 622.30 SF(EXEMPT PATIO) _-7 NONUNITCOMMON AREA 1 168280 SF TOTAL GROSS UNIT FLOOR AREA. U ELEVATOR GROSS FLOOR AREA-NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA E ELEVATOR = {_�. 21.05]08 SF-11.888.85 SF=t;66311 3F I [ 11 f 703 1,403 1 c 01 { COMMERCIAL 1135 3]CATEGORYV PERCENTAGE OF USE 2388 41)x,001=2390% LODGING.((6791]QH2,38B41)x1001=71.11% F� STAIR Y2 11�) I� APP T N AREA. 8 LIN 3TA1R 62 GOA6AERCIAL'.11688�e2890%-3378029E NELEPTON I LODGING:11668.%x7111%=5,311.50 SF l �� , l FlNKFLOOR AREA CUMULATIVE 1$72G398F(2881) $$ COMMERCIAL AL41M 81+3,3 17,18961.735.47:1) ) LOGGING:8794.70.8.311.80=17,106.506E 12.47:11 OFFICE x ygy / 3 BOWLJNGALLEY J I LOBBY el I I 9 1709 I I I � ix MECHANICAL ll J MFN'8I' fff-_.__. —__ I - - -- COSMERCNLAREA a Lttp L1ti 1 ] j t �- 1 SF' + Q Z I I 1 , L1t2 Mj y LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN MAIN FIAOR-FM CALCULATIONS < c k FAR-1 1 li+/ 11f✓ I 1� /u / .i///. 1 I• JI /� I/—i1 IY.�.�� / II I Ni �1 1 iI - �1�/b•�I�Ii Vii, I� Tei' �L,,rL II I'II ^�i1j - '�' i all ! . �� Il�� lli� OPOW �I I �I6 6 � I/ � lI'i ♦ i� J �IIs1YY1 /IYN/,il"777 > . .i e'Li♦� '^S- � I aisli_�� I r___�IT____J, ___ rJ✓✓/ I iiiii ��' b ♦'T♦ . �Mall r.�J ._ ♦•♦pp••• .I ♦ a � %�/1 lii'.'%1 /raTCY•I I� i ♦�♦�♦�p.��� ° a%%i♦♦♦�d .pal ��� :•: gi'•/•`; �' ' 0a1•Rw•`•`w� iS ,ll /Iir/1/i�s� `R. �� � ♦ 1Q r� II 1@ A X14 i I �I�II—nS �r♦.a.❖.•..ViL•Oiid0��•w'�♦♦�•il ISI ' %y — _==— - i�----____ � .��ii .:� NIW4 .•Oo i♦ii ii lii♦iii q°i♦i AW.1 S• ♦•i'i/iiiii••iii0•ii•�'i o•Oi♦♦ � •./♦♦♦.♦l � i ♦y o♦• �/1� � ri��J ��Jr;lr�I •="//D�� %f/II ♦°•♦♦♦♦♦♦ -r♦ ♦♦ ♦ •�"� I // I /ill ♦�•�•�.�.�♦�.4♦p�.1...ii♦t♦�in♦ t �I.• � � I�sJl �/S/i�r•�� • :r► �t II O'O po•0♦♦♦Oi•Oi♦iRbi°iS e� I ���i / I y / T I .`..Ais•�•.� •i♦iR�ii °.♦r♦• M�•�°uS / ������j� �% 11'►�.1���I� �iA•:♦i❖••iirii♦iR'Vi/�i i•Ii / �_.1 ISO, N/I00o ♦•ai��.••sS!♦!/fi ll OF 7 =----- n/I I111'11'�� I I— .. �j►�V/�jr rl rVi i I I % / /I .:Ihw •..If OCFl�lO LOAFR LEVEL LOCM SCHEDULE REPONimbmr Nano AIs H-f I L100 BONLNG ALLEY 185]5 COMMON SPACE I L101 LOUNGE 1719 BF COMMON SPACE b L102 ELEVATOR QSF COMMON SPACE BOYRJII SERVICE u I I L103 ELEVATOR 42SF COMMON SPACE L104 STAIRS2 12/SF COMMON SPACE BACKWHOUSE L108 I b s TRASN AREA I L16B STAIR=1 _ 1USF COMMON SPACE L107 I R 112 I L708 Commit 985 COMMON SPACE b RETALB L107 BACKOFHOUSE rASF COMMON SPACE F 102 I L10B BOMNGSERVICE 303 SF COMMON SPACE I NET LEASABLE AREA AREA I I L109 LOBBY 229W COMMON SPACE L110 MECHMIGL3315 COMAONSPACE CORNIDUR I I lttt MEMS 1130 SF COMMON SPACE L106 c I I 1112 WOMENS 1305E COMMON SPACE 0. M'-1• TTP !-r. TOTAL AREA SW • f.IP M alb-- I NO NET LEASABLE OR NET LIVABLE ON THIS LEVEL OUT I MN LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE PASSABEMAY I Number NP Ano 100 LOBBY 524SF COMMON SPACE 101 RETAILA 1]89 SF NET LEASABLE BKI STORAGE 102 RETAILS 15325E NET LEASABLE E 31- 1- 103 ELEVATOR 415 COMMON SPACE 108 101 STAIRf2 IV I=OU COMMON SPACE EM AIRM 105 T PASSAGEYWY 1225 COMMON SPACE $TAIRH I J I 108 Sq STORAGE OFMCE 202COMMON SPACE " I I 107 N)N 1115E W COMMON SPACE , L105 _ I I 108 OFFICE 93 SF COMMON SPACE d I H H �.— 2 108 STAIR 91 12]5 COMMON SPACE g LE 0 01-1 e`P /�a�J 4 111 CSW AR7 S AZZ—.LOUNGE Y I ® o ® ® �/ D 11 I nz TRASNRI�AREA. S=SF COMMON SPACE ' I I I TOTAL NET LEASABLE:3,351 S - - NS � R c e = b COURTYARD b SUMMARY: o n N LOBBY TOTAL BUILDING ALFA 28,228 SF 1 a b I s PIT WBLLCAMiNmAR�A 2,FTIT� N s tOD I MM TOTAL NET SF LEASABLE:3,351 SF 5 e E - g3 TOTAL 8 TOTAL COMMON MEA 1,725 S _ I A I ® 0 ® ® ® A I PUBLIC LEVEL 2ND-4S26 D-S y EE 3 2NDOTRD LEVEL ASUE. 255.3 520 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE:2ND E 6 W.3R H H 2 TOTAL NETMON AREA; A;2ND-08=,3.M$TOTAL I, STAR 92 I I PUBLLC MIBLRY:M2l1 i3RD-055.3RD1.020 SF L101 I STAIR0 I ROOF LEVEL:5.2125 Ir 10L t RECEPTION I TOTAL NET LEASABLE:O SF 8 o� i__.__ 10I TOTAL NETMONARE 1, TOTAL COMMON AREA 1,213 SF ff F I PUBLIC AMENITY: 9995 --w-I LOWER IEVEt:S S '_____ ._._. I - I TOTAL NET LEASABLE:O SF ¢ 9 • ___';�I_.... I m'-1 _ - I TOTAL NET WABLE O SF Y OFFICE I PUBLICRV OSF 5,8825 gm 108 I TOTAL COMMONAREA 108803 TOTALPUBUCAMENlTY B SF BOIARJNC ALLEY I I TOTALNETLEASASLE 33515F TOTALNETWASLE]612SF LOBBY L109 I RETAIL I S Y b 101 O MECHANICAL ME" I R NETLFASABLEAREA I < o L110 LI n•-r r-P I I 5 O L112 e I n $ G ru /MOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN /,1 MA81 FLOOR-NET lEAS11BLE k LI 3H5`:1'-0' li 3It8' NL-1 r r r-r a r-r SECOND LEVEL&WIND LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Na Nam 1 Atoll ��� ��� 200 300 LOBBYELEVATOR RRIDOR 8828E COMMON SPACE ^ MI 301 STAIRH 1P SF Cpd&ON SPACE _ Room6R. Raam7 Ream& 202 902 EIEVAIOR 42 SF COMMON SPACE Rmin 2 CR16T ® ® 211 212 203 303 ELEVATOR 42&F COMMON SPACE 2% b 204 301 STAR#2 127 BF COMMON SPACE ROOM Room 9 b 205 305 Roem I Raam M 17T SF NET LIVABLE I� 21] 203 308 RIIcIIvI2 �24 ��OUTOOOR r-IP r-r r-r r.e I/� Y-r r-P 27 307 RamRoom 25 R 25 143 SF NET LIVABLE T6WACE� 21IB 308 RaAn4 Rarn28 143SF NET LIVABLE b b b 209 BDG RwlnS Roan27 148SF NET LIVABLE ® r.r b 210 310 Ram6 RamonM 147 BF NET LIVABLE 211 311 Rods T Room 29 143 SF NET LIVABLE II 1 212 312 Raam8 Room 30 143SF NET LIVABLE I I b 213 313 Raan1 RaIIrIM 2008E NET WABLE b b �°`. • 214 911 Raam 10 Room 32 280 SF NET LIVABLE 'hH Ellr ® 1 448 ` o. 216 316 0.am112 Room 33 IMSF NET LIVABLE 318 918 Roan 12 Roan 3{ 1608E NET LIVABLE - 217 317 Roam] RoomM 282 SF NETLNABLE BTAMH b b t 218 318 RaMn,{ Roam 38 204 SF NET LIVABLE 219 319 Ram 15 Raam 37 156 SF NET LIVABLE MECHANICAL ME" ® y�� r.P Y.1P ar r r P 220 320 Roan 1221 321 RcIcIirI 7 Raae 38 156 SF NET LIVABLE SF NET LIVABLE SCREENING ®' \\V'/ 6 6 222 322 Roan 18 Room40 166 SF NET LIVABLE tr r e r e a 6 2,4 a 223 333 Room 19 Ram 41 147 BF NET LIVABLE MIECN.-AREI11 `/�//\yam TYR MW 234 320 Room 20 Room 4Z 1443 8 SF NET WET ABLE ® `r ® ® 08 TNRH YLIV NP 228 3% Raam22 RaomM ,608E NETWABLE ® TOTAL MEA 4828SF ® TOTAL NET WABLE 5808 SF e = 6 ELEVA y 0.00E LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Num Wr Nam Are4 400 LOBBY 52 SF COMMON SPACE a a,-r Rear 11 a 401 MEN'S 1%SF COMMON SPACE 7}I Z ��� - 215 x"°- 402 STAIR 91 127SF COMMON SPACE e 5 LOBBY TERRACE i LOBBYA'ORRIDOR 403 ELEV.01 43SF COMMON SPACE 1= ® couQ 6 I 6 404 ELEV 82 42 SF COMMON SPACE i ® PUBLIC I ® 405 STAR 02 127 SF COMMON SPACE 3 AMENITY Roan/2 :-r 4% NpAENS 163 SF COMMON SPACE % r Z AREA 216 407 NECK AREA 205 SF COMMON SPACE � f _- r 1n 406 MECH,AREA 230 SF COMMON SPACE ATOR r�-L 6 a 400 OUTDOOR TERRACE 3989 SF PUBLICAMENITY Zjo tr.r r I'.r r r-s � z 3 I 'Y b TOTALARFA 52128F = b - NO NET LIVABLE OR NET LEASABLE ON THIS LEVEL j ® SUMMARY: STAR#2 x r TOTAL BUILDINGAREA M218 SF MECILAREA MAIN LEVEL 51680 SF R.22 Roan% Roan 19201 ® TOTAL NET LEASABLE 3,351 SF ® 4 ® 224 ® TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0 SF FF b Roan 13 TOTAL COMMON AREA 1.r15 SF MCCHMN:AL 217 PUBIICAMENT':BO/SF SCREF111NG I -Ir r-r • ADADORM 2ND&3RD LEVEL:2 ".MSF 3RD-4.826WB TorN.rErLP•=•�P2ND&3Ro-o BF r-r UNIT TOTAL NET LIVABLE 2ND-3808 SF 3R 3,808 ---- - STAIR M2 b b T0TALCOMMONARFA:2ND-1,U20SF•3R6I,0208F N PUBLIC AMENRY:2ND&MD0 SF 405 -r ROOF LEVEL 5,212 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE O SF ■ b TOTAL NETLIVABLEP.0 1213 ❑ cs b PUBLIC TOTAL OMAITY:3, :12135F PUBIICAMENffY:3 GBe SF �L y t. LOWER LEVEL 5,882 SIF 9 I w TOTAL NET lF.ABABLf OSF �S � TOTALNETWABLEOSF 3 m-r II-IP 2n-w b b b b TOTALCOMAON AREA 5.6626E a a „ PUBLIC MEN"OSF -� W1DODfl�P TOTAL COMMON MFA: 10860 TOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY:480:13 TOTAL NETLEASABlE:3351SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE:TBI2 SF W �� 8 b RamH Room,& Rooms 0 Room, I,B' 1 8 I 225 ® 221 I a FIP e'nP r-IP r 4nP P rlP r P-1P rPp� TOTAL-30 BEDS PER FLOOR BEDSTYPESPERFLOOR. TOTAL PILLOW,ALL LEVELS,% ly 6 TOTAL:22 UNITS PER FLOOR TIINS=12 3a TOTAL UNITS IN BUILDING=H UNITS QUEENS=Ill /1 4TH FLOOR RAN BECONO MO THIRD FLOORM PL 5 NL 2 ELEVATOR SRAFT BEYOND Tb ELEVATOR SHAFT 9g.5•V EXPOSED STEEL LIVING GREEN FRAMING,TYP. WALL(TYP.) ' ,. UPPER PARAPET DECORATIVE STEEL GLASS RAIUNO.TYP. �PULLEY.TYP. PARAPET I� ROOF LEVEL�1 FUTURESIGNAGE - -----CANOPY SUPPORT CABLE.TYP G n / I OECORATNE STEEL - _ COUNTER WEIGHT,TP. OD THIRD FLOUR INSULATED CLEAR GLAZING,M. I i FUTURE SIGNAGE FUTURE SIGNAGE EXPOSED STEELI __ _ SECONDFLOOR FRAMING,TYP. — - - 19'.0'V E I I INSULATED I I I LLEAR GLAZING,TYP. I CONCRETE BASE. e MAN FLOOR r M i EAST ELEVATION TO ELEVATOR LIVING GREEN ELEVATOR SHAFT 40-W € W>LL TTYP.) BEYOND 3 EXPOSED STEEL € FRAMING.TYP. �i UPPER PAftAP�� £S 93 0 I 5 GLASS RAILING,TYP. OECORATNE STEEL cc 55 �' ... PULLEY PARAPET b 0 sr-S. 8 @ EXPOSED STEEL ` —. CONNECTIONS,TYP. _ RWFLEVE-L n OPY SUPPORT *IL3 CABLE ORATIVE IGHT 'a COUNTER WEIGHT _ THIRD FLOOR 29'� INSULATED CLEAR GVSING.TYP — w 1 4a EXPOSED STEEL _ _ 1 SECONDFLWR V U FRAMING.TP. e • q 1a o - OR FRAM LA 0 - a _ Upj lh INSULATED -CANOPY BEYOND n Z CLEAR GLAZING.TVP bL • • • • a • . F� m S CONCRETE 615E TPOPERABLE ,- I .I • e _-.—_ VANDOVS(TRP) B I _ MAN FLOORDo.& 3 L # V SOUTH ELEVATION a A-210 JI TIO ELEVATOR _ _SH_AFF ELEVATOR SHAFT- - -UVING GREEN WALL BEYOND (TVP.) _UPPER PARAPET GLASS DISTRESSED- - 'I GLASS 43' RAILING METAL PANELS RAILING (TYP)1,3 - _- i RUNNING BOND PARAPET n 3T-8'11 EXPOSED STEEL - - - FRWNG,TM ROOFIr LEVEL�1 I I _ I I I ' I INSULATED THIRD FLOOR I� Z4' 0'KZW CLEAR GLALNG,TYP. - i 1 I 1 I I EXPOSED STEEL--, TEEL FRAMING.TYP. 1 SECOND FLOpit n ' J, DISTRESSED A 1P NELS P LOADING.UTIUIY, I _ RUNNING BOND d AND TRASH AREA I -..- CONCRETE CARD EO SCREENWALL - L—T CONCRETE B45E,TYP.� CAST BASE.TYPE MAIN FLOOR A J • 9 n WEST ELEVATION f ; � b TM ELEVATOR I S�-� ELEVATOR SHAFT I -LMNGGREENWALL W 6" ,EYOND (TVP.) UPPER PAR33P1 V < _ DECO MTNE STEEL -- LASS RAILING,TYP, 8® PULLEY q PARAPET A 3R T��8'� � $$s @ -ROOF! OOF LEVEL I� d 3. l/ EXPOSED STEEL gC 3 CANOPY SUPPORT CONNECTIONS,TYR CABLE -5 DECORATNE STEEL a COUNTER WEIGHT THIRD F_LOO! n _ INSULA n G CLEARW CLEAR GWJNO.NP. EXPOSEDSIEEL ll FRMI ANG.TYP 0 S L SECONDFLOOR_� U I Y9 f 0 O N LOADING.UTILT',AND T, ... TRASH AREA � 5' CANOPY BEY ON c - - - (TYR) nRUNN NBOND� G INSULATE - CONCRETE BASE.TYP. _-_ CLEAR CLAallo.TYP. -- I—. � I -. it - — MAIN BOOR l� `c C Z 31�THIELEVAnON 3 A-211